|
|
|
|
|
|
|
244 WILLIAMS' CASE.
by that which belonged to the inheritance, either as the price of
the standing timber which the tenant for life could not cut, or as
the price of the remainder or reversion from which the tenant for
life could have derived no profit; and therefore, it would seem to
be clearly improper to award to him the interest upon any portions;
of the purchase money which represent those prices, (q)
There is yet one other matter which must be attended to, and
that is, as to the point of time at which the valuation of the life
interest k to be made. A valuation as of the time when it arose
would, in many cases, give to the tenant for life its greatest value
after he had enjoyed it many years; and therefore, it would seem
to be most correct to have the valuation put upon it at that point
of time when it was to be taken away or extinguished; as in cases
of dower, &c,, at the time when the land was sold free of such
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, (r)
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, (s)
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(q) Ex parte Artis, 2 Ves. 400; Tracy v. Hereford, 2 Bro. C. G. 138; Davis v.
Marlborough, 2 Swan. 151, 158, note; Oliver v. Court, 3 Exch. Rep. 330; Atter-
soll v. Stevens, 1 Taunt. 183; Maccubbin v. Cromwell, 2 H, & G. 460.—-(r) Ex
parte Le Compte, 1 Atk. 251; Ex parte Belton, 1 Atk. 251; Kircudbright v. Kir-
cudbright, 8 Ves. 63; Gowland v. De Faria, 17 Yes. 24.—(s) Butcher v. Churchill,
14 Ves.574; Ex parte Thistlewood, 10 Ves. 286; Ex parte Whitehead, 1 Meriv.
10 and 127.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
