|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WILLIAMS' CASE. 267
all the annual interest, as it may arise, from the whole purchase
money, including that proportion of it which must be considered
as the price of the reversion, as well as of that which may properly
be regarded as the price of the life estate. Apart from these legis-
lative enactments in relation to these specified estates for life in
land; and as regards all other life interests in land, annuities for
life, &c. the courts of justice have been left without any positive
or general rule as their guide, to adjust the value of life interests,
when called upon, as they could according to the general princi-
ples of law and justice.
There can be no doubt, that long antecedent to the amend-
ment in 1800, of the act to direct descents, there must have been
brought before the courts of justice many cases in which it was
necessary to make a valuation of a life interest; but no such case
has been reported. In a case which was brought before this court
in the year 1801, by a widow to obtain an allowance of a propor-
tion of the proceeds of sale as a compensation for her dower, the
Chancellor speaks of it as the first of the kind, within his recol-
lection. In adjusting the proportion of the proceeds of the sale to
be allowed to her in that case, he declares, that as she could not
use her third part of the land as tenant in fee simple, she could not
be entitled to one-third of the annual interest on the whole pur-
chase money; but on consideration of all the circumstances, and
without apparently adverting to the act providing, that in cases
arising under the act to direct descents, the widow should be
allowed not more than a seventh nor less than a tenth of the pro-
ceeds of sale, he awarded to her three-twentieths of the net pro-
ceeds of sale, (t) Some time after which, this matter, as to the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(O Maccubbin v. Cromwell, 2 H. & G. 457.
CASSANAVE v. BROOKE.—This petition, filed on the 29th of October, 1799, stated,
that the petitioner was the widow of Peter Cassanave, who died seised of a large
real estate in which she was entitled to dower; the whole of which, at the suit of
the creditors of her husband had been sold for the payment of his debts; that the
defendant Samuel Brooke, as trustee, had sold it, under a decree of this court, dis-
charged of all claim of dower; and under that representation, it bad been purchased
by the then holders from the trustee. Therefore to quiet their titles; and that justice
might be done to all, she prayed, that she might be allowed a proportion of the net
proceeds of the sale in lieu of dower.
This petition was on the 29th of October, 1709, endorsed that by the Chancellor.
'Issue subpoena returnable immediately.' After which the trustee answered on oath
and admitted all the facts stated in the petition.
21st May, 1801.—HANSON, Chancellor,—The said cause being submitted on the
bill or petition and answer, the same were by the Chancellor read and considered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
