|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WILLIAMS' CASE 253
showed to the widow for her dower, without to any prin-
ciples by which the amount of such compensation is to be ascer-
tained by the master m Chancery by whom it is to be^djutttd, (I)
In Maryland there have been frequent and important occasions
for recurring to the doctrine of chances in regard to the expecta-
tion of human life as a means of ascertaining the value of life inte-
rests in property; and the valuation of such interests has presented
many and great difficulties to the minds of the legislative as we E
as to those of the judicial department; and therefore, it cannot be
deemed amiss to bring together here all that is to be found in the
books of our code in relation to this important matter.
An annual public tax upon land may, with propriety, be re-
garded, in most respects, as being of the same nature as a mere
incumbrance imposed upon it by its individual owner. It is evi-
dently one that bears upon it like the annual interest of a mortgage
debt; which must be kept down by the particular tenant who
takes its rents and profits. But although that may be considered
as a correct mode of adjusting such a burthen as between a parti-
cular tenant, paying no rent, and a mere naked reversioner or
remainderman; yet as between landlord and a tenant rendering
rent; and as between a tenant of a house rendering rent to a land-
lord, who himself pays rent over to a ground landlord for the same
estate, the question is different; and the mode of adjusting the
burthen of taxation, in such cases, is by no means so clear. The
proportions and the mode in which a tax should be borne by those
who hold distinct interests in the same land seems to have been
attended with some perplexity every where; and it appears, that
the matter remained long in doubt here, even if it can yet be con-
sidered as having been finally put to rest.
It has been laid down as a settled principle, that the citizens of
every state ought to contribute towards the support of the govern-
ment, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abili-
ties; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively
enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of govern-
ment to the individuals of a nation is like the expense of manage-
ment to the joint-tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to
contribute in proportion to their respective interests. In the ob-
servation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{I) Miller v. Cape, 1 Desau. 110; Milter v. Miller, 1 Desau. Ill j Client 9. Clif-
ford, 1 Desau. 115; Rutledge v. Williamson, 1 Desan. 159.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
