|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WILLIAMS' CASE. 241
remainderman, or reversioner, that the estimate must be made with
reference to the then actual nature of the life; and, that an appor-
tionment of the burthen must be adjusted between the several
holders of the estate, so that, if the particular tenant was bound to
pay in any degree, he was made to pay in proportion to the benefit
he in fact took under the transaction; and that the remainderman,,
or reversioner, was made to pay with reference to his proportion of
the benefit; which estimate and adjustment must be made upon
facts, not upon mere speculation, (i)
In applying this rule for estimating the value of an estate for
life, or in order to make an apportionment between the several
owners of a real estate, it appears, that the English courts of
justice have, latterly, in almost all cases, sought assistance from,
the tables formed by mathematicians of the expectation of life,
without receiving them, except, perhaps, in the case of the
distribution of the assets of a deceased person's estate; (j) as in
any respect conclusive, (k) Because, as a basis for all those ta-
bles a certain average rate of mortality being established or
assumed, they are then the result of calculations upon mere age,
taking all lives of the same age to be of equal value, considering
none as bad, that are ordinarily good. But the constitutions of
individuals differ essentially; the health of the same individual
may have been materially affected by accident or climate; or he
may have a latent disease which has in a greater, or less degree,
affected his duration of life for many years. All such circum-
stances must be taken into consideration; and, therefore, no ordi-
nary table of the expectation of life, although it may afford much
useful information, can alone be taken as giving a correct general
rule for estimating the value of the life of any particular indivi-
dual. (1)
In cases of pensions or annuities for life granted by government;
in cases of a life interest in land, not chiefly valuable because of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(i) White v. White, 9 Ves. 554; Allan v. Backhouse, 2 Ves. & Bea. 78.—(j) Ex
parte Thistlewood, 19 Ves. 250.—(k) Heathcote v. Paignon, 2 Bro. C. C. 167;
Griffith v. Spratley, 1 Cox, 389; Evans v. Chesshire, Belt's Supp. to Ves. 306;
Gowland v. De Faria, 17 Ves. 25; Ex parte Thistlewood, 19 Ves. 236; Ex parte
Whitehead, 1 Meriv. 127; Davis v. Marlborough, 2 Swan. 147; Portmore v. Taylor,
6 Cond. Chan. Rep. 104; Newton v. Hunt, 7 Cond. Chan. Rep. 518; Wardle v.
Carter, 10 Cond. Chan. Rep. 163; Ryle v. Brown, 6 Exch. Rep. 265.—(l) Gwynne
v. Heaton, l Bro, G, C. 2; Heathcote v. Paignon, 2 Bro. C. C. 167; Gibson v.
Jeyes, 6 Ves, 274; Ex parte Thistlewood, 19 Ves. 236,
31 v.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
