WILLIAMS' CASE.—3 BLAND. 257

claim: or where the life interest had been withheld, at the date of
the order, by which a sum in gross was directed by the Court to
be given in place of it; leaving the previous income which had, or
might have accrued, and should have been paid, to be accounted
for as rents and profits. But where an annuity had been given to
a child as an advancement, it was said, if it should be brought into
hotchpot after the death of the parent, that a valuation ought to
be put upon it as of the day when it was granted; and so too,
where a party comes as an expectant heir to set aside the contract
on the ground of fraud and inadequacy of price, the valuation is
to be calculated as of the day of the original transaction. Ex
parte Le Compte, I Atk. 251; Ex parte Belt on, 1 Atk. 251: Kircud-
bright v. Kircudbright. 8 Ves. 63; Gowland v. De Faria, 17 Ves. 24.
But this whole matter, as well in regard to the expectation of
life and the nature of the securities to support the life interest, as
in regard to the exact point of time at which the valuation is to be
adjusted, seems as yet, in England, to remain unsettled by any
positive general rule. Butcher v. Churchill, 14 Ves. 574; Ex parte
Thistlewood, 19 Ves. 236; Ex parte Whitehead, 1 Merit: 10 and 127.
There are some cases, however, in which it has not been deemed
necessary to put a present value upon the entire particular estate
in comparison with that of the inheritance, in order to adjust the
proportions in which the burthen should be borne by each. As in
*the case of a real estate under an incumbrance, it is held,

that the tenant for life in possession must keep down the 245
interest of the debt. For although the whole is liable to the
creditors; yet as between the tenant for life and him iu remainder,
it is said to fall in with natural justice, that those who have a di-
vided interest of an estate, should keep down the burthen during
their own time; and therefore, by a construction in equity, the
tenant for life is held bound to keep down the interest to the whole
amount of the rents and profits; as otherwise the creditor may
come upon his life estate for the piincipal. Whence it seems to
have been taken for granted, as a general understanding, and as
a natural apportionment, in all such cases, that he who has the
corpus shall take the burthen; and he who has only the fruit shall
pay to the extent of the fruit of that debt; White v. White, 9 Ves.
560; or in other words, that the rents and profits of the incumbered
estate must have been specially intended to meet and keep down
the interest of the debt, leaving the principal only to be treated
as an ineumbrance upon the inheritance, or chief body of the
estate. For it must be always remembered, that the tenant for
life and the incumbrancers may at any time have the estate sold;
and, after satisfying the debt, have the surplus, if any, appor-
tioned among the tenant for life and the remainderman according
to their respective interests. Hungerford v. Hungerford, Gilb. Eq.
Rep. 69; Bevel v. Watkinson, 1 Vex. 93; Amesbury v. Brown, 1 Ves.
17 3 B.