|
|
|
|
|
|
|
222 WILLIAMS' CASE.
and distributed at once in Just proportions, a determination of the
present value of all the life interests is necessarily involved. And
that constitutional rule which requires every citizen to contribute
Bis proportion of public taxes according to his actual worth in real
or personal property, seems to have involved the legislature in a
similar necessity of determining the proportional value of life inte-
rests. It is thus evident that the principles upon which the court
is now called upon to act, have a most important and extensive
bearing; and therefore, "will merit a careful and comprehensive
consideration.
The earliest case in relation to this matter I have met with, is
one which was decided by the High Court of Chancery of Eng-
land in 1661, and from the language used, in the report of it, there
is room to infer, that it was the first in which any question as to
the proportional value of a particular estate, and a reversion or re-
mainder had ever been presented for determination. It appears,
that Hannah, the widow of Sharp, who had left her a considerable
estate, married Geering, her second husband, who settled upon
her certain land for life as a jointure; that they mortgaged the
jointure; after which Geering died, and she married Rowel, with
whom she filed a bill to redeem; and a question arose in what
manner a redemption should be made, and by whom; whether by
Hannah; or by the infant heir of Geering; and by whom the mort-
gage money should be paid. Upon which it was said, that the
court conceived it most just, that Hannah and the infant heir
should proportionably pay what was due upon the mortgage, at
the time of the death of Geering the mortgagor, rating the estate
for life of Hannah at one-third, and the reversion in fee at two-
thirds, from the time of the death of Geering. (e) In the year
1671, the same rule of proportion was applied in a similar case, (d)
In 1682, on a bill to redeem, it was declared to be the ordinary
rule of the court, that one-third of the redemption money should
be paid to the tenant for life, and the residue to the remainder-
man, (e) In 1692, on a bill by a reversioner against the tenant
for life to discover incumbrances, and to compel him to bear his
proportion, it was held, that the tenant for life should pay two
parts in five of the debts, and the remaining three-fifths by tie re-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) Rowel v. Walley, 1 Cha. Rep. 219.~(d) Cornish v. Mew, 1 Ca. Cha. 271,—
(e) Brent v. Best, 1 Vern. 70; Clyat v. Batteson, 1 Vern. 404; Thynn v. Duvall,
2 Vern. 117.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
