WILLIAMS' CASE.—3 BLAND. 255

security given for its regular payment; and in examining that se-
curity it will be proper, not only to consider the pecuniary circum-
stances of the grantor; but his expectation of life, the hazardous
nature of the business in which he may be engaged; Ringgold's
Case, 1 Bland, 26; and also his prudence; for, although he may, at
the time, be in circumstances altogether unexceptionable; yet his
death, his misfortunes, or his indiscretion in the management of
his affairs may, in a short time, greatly impair, or totally destroy
the security for the payment of the annuity. In these respects
therefore, an annuity granted by a legally incorporated company
must, in general, be considered as of much greater value than one
of the same amount depending upon personal security alone; be-
cause there is a steadiness in the transactions of such bodies
politic which, being the foundation of their credit, gives a value
to their security greater than that of an individual. Gibson v.
Jeyes, 6 Ves. 274, 279; Ex parie Thistlewood, 19 Ves. 230.

In addition to all these various circumstances relative to the ex-
pectation of life, and the securities by which a life interest is to be
continued and sustained, it will be necessary moreover to ascertain
the annual product of the life interest in order to make a proper
estimate of its present value; for. apart from those things having
an imaginary value, such as jewels and the like, the true criteiion
of the value of all property is the actual profit it may be made to
produce; and hence, it has always been considered most coirect
to estimate the value of lands, annuities, &c. as so many years
purchase; or, in other words, that the whole estate may be esti
mated as equivalent to so many years of its income paid at the
time of the purchase. Fremoult v. Dedire, 1 P. Will. 429; Find v.
Find, 2 Freem. 210; Badger v. Badger. Mosely, 117; Barnardiston
v. Linyood, 2 Atk. 135; Gwynne v. Heaton, 1 Bro. C. C. 2; Heath-
cote v. Paignon, 2 Bro. C. C. 167; Griffith v. iSpratley, 1 Cox, 389;
Gibson v. Jeyes, 6 Ves. 268; Peacock v. Evans, 16 Ves. 512; E,r
parte Thistlewood, 19 Ves. 253; Chalmer v. Bradley, 1 Jac. & Walk.
59; Oliver v. Court, 3 Exch. Rep. 320; Ryle v. Brown, 6 Exch. Rep.
265. (x) There is almost every where a material * difference
between the amount of the annual legal interest on the pur- 243

(x) Vulpean, in the time of the Emperor Justinian, A. D. 5S9, estimated
the values of annuities as follows.—(Pandect. 35, 2, 68.

Age. Years of purchase.

Under 20 30

20 to 25 28

25 to 30 25

30 to 35 22

35 to 40 30

at 41 18 It is uncertain whether in this computation he

42 17 made any allowance for discount, or something

43 16 equivalent in meaning: or whether, as is much