|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WILLIAMS' CASE, 245
the case of a real estate under an incumbrance, it is held, that the
tenant for life in possession must keep down the interest of the
debt. For although the whole is liable to the creditors; yet as
between the tenant for life and him in remainder, it is said to fall
in with natural justice, that those who have & divided 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 principal. Whence it seems to have been taken for
granted, as a general understanding, and as a natural apportion-
ment, 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; (t) 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 prin-
cipal only to be treated as an incumbrance 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, apportioned among the tenant for life and the
remainderman according to their respective interests, (u) This
rule compelling a tenant for life to discharge the interest of mort-
gages and other real incumbrances, applies as well to tenants for
years, (w) to tenant in dower, and a tenant by the courtesy, as to
all other kinds of tenants for life; (x) except, that as to the dow-
ress, she, being entitled but to one-third of the estate during her
life, will not be compelled to keep down more than one-third of
the interest of any charges affecting the real estate in which she
is entitled to dower; (y) and as to her share of the principal, sup-
posing that in order to be let into her dower she is obliged to re-
deem the whole mortgage, it is conceived, that she would hate a
claim on the estate for two-thirds of the interest, and the whole of
the principal, (z)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(f) White v. White, 9 Ves. 500.—(u) Hungerford v. Hungerford, Gilb. Eq. Rep.
69; Revel v. Watkinson, 1 Ves. 93; Amesbury v. Brown, 1 Ves. 477; Saville v.
Saville, 2 Atk. 463; Penrhyn v. Hughes, 5 Ves. 107; Powel Mortg. 921, note H.—
(w) Amesbury v. Brown, 1 Ves. 480.—(x) Peterborough v. Mordaunt, 1 Eden, 478;
Tracy v. Hereford, 2 Bro. C. C. 128; Shrewsbury v. Shrewsbury, 3 Bro. C. C. 126;
S. C, 1 Vis., jun., 227; Bertie 9. Abingdon, 3 Meriv. 560; Burgess v. Mawbey,
11 Cond. Cha. Rep.96.—(y) Banks v. Sutton, 2 P, Will. 716.—(z) Palmes v.
Danby, Prec. Chan. 137;j Powel Mort. 923, note; 1 Mad. Chan. 238.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
