|
|
|
|
|
|
|
252 WILLIAMS' CASE.
of human life, means of ascertaining the present value of such
interests, is of comparatively modern date in England; and does
not appear it have been, in any way, noticed in our law until after
our Declaration of Independence. In several of the original states
of out Union companies have been incorporated, with power to
life annuities, and to make assurances of lives; (g) which,
on the part of such bodies politic particularly, must necessarily
involve a careful consideration of what may be deemed the expec-
tation of human life at the various ages. And there have been
other legislative enactments which appear to have involved a simi-
lar reference to the doctrine of chances, in regard to the expecta-
tion of life, as a means of making a just apportionment of taxes
between estates for life and those in remainder or reversion in
lands. But little is to be found in the judicial proceedings of our
country in relation to this matter.
It appears, that in New York, in cases in equity, where it be-
comes necessary, or it is agreed to award to a widow a compensa-
tion in lieu of her dower, it is the course of the court to refer the
matter to a master in Chancery to have a gross sum liquidated by
the value of her life according to the tables of life annuities; or to
have the interest of one-third of the purchase money of the estate
secured to her for her life; and yet it would seem, that the gross
sum to be awarded to her must be no more than equivalent to the
price of an annuity the same in amount as the annual rents and pro-
fits of her dower, (h) In Virginia it is said, that where the estate
is sold, and the widow agrees to receive a gross sum in lieu of her
dower, the court must direct an issue to have the amount ascer-
tained; (i) which, however, is only calling upon a jury to cut the
knot, since they could not be more capable than the Chancellor of
drawing from the evidence any settled precise idea of the value, (j)
But if the widow refuses to accept a gross sum in lieu of her
dower, then, it is said, that one-third of the purchase money must
be set apart, and the interest thereof be paid to her annually during
her life, (k) And in South Carolina, where in equity an estate is
sold, it is laid down, that a reasonable compensation must be
(g) 1807, ch. 68; 1813, ch, 101; 1817, ch. 189— (k) Tabele v. Tabele, 1 John.
C. C, 45; Hazen v. Thurber, 4 John, a C. 604; Titus v. Neilson, 5 Jobs, C. C.
468; Swaine v. Ferine, 5 John. C. C. 491; Everston v. Tappan, 5 John, C. C. 513 ;
Hale v. James, 6 John, C, C. 263.—(i) Pollard v. Underwood, 4 Hen, & Mun. 459;
Davison v. Waite, 2 Mun., 527,-(j) Griffith v. Spratley, 1 Cox, 390—(k) Herbert
v. Wren, 7 Cran, 380.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
