|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
226 WILLIAMS' CASE.
life was so entirely too low as to be evidence of an unconscionable
bargain which was altogether unfit to be sustained, (x) In 1734,
on a bill to be relieved from an assignment of a legacy, it appeared,
that Andrew Mackean had, by his will, given a legacy of £500 to
his nephew Martin, if he should survive the testator's wife Catha-
rine, who, by the will, was to have the interest of the £500 for her
life, as also the principal in case she should survive Martin. The
nephew Martin was about twenty-four years of age; had led an
extravagant life, and had been some time in Newgate. The widow
Catharine was about sixty-four years old; but as to her health
there was a variety of evidence. Martin sold his interest on this
legacy of £500 to Cole; for which Cole stipulated to give £100 to
be paid in j£5 per annum, with a proviso, that if Martin survived
the widow, then what should remain due of the £100, should be
paid to him within a year after her death; but if he died in her life-
time, then the £5 per annum to continue payable until the £100
should be fully paid. The price thus stipulated to be paid for this
legacy, was held to be so much below its real value that the assign-
ment of it would have been set aside as unreasonable, had it not
been solemnly and repeatedly confirmed by Martin, (y)
It is not unlawful for a remainderman or a reversioner to sell his
estate. Such sales are only set aside because of some fraudulent
conduct in the purchaser, or because of his having taken some un-
due advantage of the seller of such an interest. Among other cir-
cumstances, inadequacy of price, may, in all such cases, be taken
into the consideration as evidence of fraud. But inadequacy of
price can only be shewn by making an estimate of the then value
of the life estate, and deducting that value from the then price of
the inheritance, or the absolute or renewable estate. Some such
proportional valuation must have been made in each of these cases,
as well as in those which relate to the discharge of mortgages, or
other incumbrances; yet there is nothing to be found in the reports
of any of them, or in the reports of those which involve the appor-
tionment of incumbrances, or in those which relate to the abatement
of specific legacies or to the adjustment of the amount for which
an annuitant is to be admitted as a creditor against the estate of a
bankrupt or insolvent, before the year 1750, which alludes to any
positive rule of apportionment, or that indicates the principles by
which the court was governed in putting a present value upon a
(x) Twisleton v. Griffith, 1 P. Will. 310.—(y) Cole v. Gibbons, 3 P. Will. 290.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
