|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WILLIAMS' CASE, 273
After having determined what number of years, according to those
tables, or otherwise, should be allowed as the expectation of life
during which the payment of the legacy was to be deferred, the
rule, according to Dr. Prece, is, for example, to subtract the value
of the life from the perpetuity, absolute property, or fee simple
estate. Multiply the remainder by the product of the given sum
into the interest of one hundred pound for a year; and this last
product divided by one hundred pound increased by its interest
for a year, will give the answer in a single present payment. Re-
collecting, that in proportion as the expectation is short, as taken
from the London table, or long, as taken from that of Finlaison, so
will the life interest to be subtracted be large or small; and conse-
quently, the present value of the reversionary payment be little or
much, (w)
Upon this case two questions arose. First. Whether the plain-
tiff Dorsey, was to be credited for the whole amount he paid for
the legacy ? Secondly. If not with that amount, but with its true
value on the 17th of February, 1817, when he bought it, then;
How was that value to be ascertained ?
March, 1824.—JOHNSON, Chancellor.—'By the agreement the
legacies are not to be satisfied by Dorsey. If, therefore, he has
undertaken to satisfy them, or purchase them, as between him and
Smith, he is only entitled to their worth at the time of purchase,
and not to their worth when they take effect in possession.
According to calculations by which the extent of a widow's dower
in land, when converted into money, and by which legacies to be
paid after a life estate, are regulated, the legacy purchased by
Dorsey was only worth $560 22; indeed by the English rule,
only f 349 06. But as that rule is founded on compound inte-
rest, on the principle that the interest should, as there it may, be
immediately vested, although we adopt the time at which it i$
most probable the right to receive the legacy will arrive, yet its
value is not come at by compound, but by simple interest; and by
that rule Dorsey can only claim, in addition to the two payments,
the sum of |560 22.' (x)
From this decision of the Chancellor the plaintiffs appealed,
and the same questions were submitted to the tribunal of the last
resort for determination.
June, 1826.— The Court of Appeals.—'The consideration of the
(w) Price Obser. ch. !.—(x) Dorsey K Smith, 7 H. & J. 356,
35 v.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
