Page images
PDF
EPUB

1883.

PLAYTERS

ABDOTT.

The bill was filed by Dame Ann Playters, the widow of the testator, and Robert Moore and Elizabeth Wright Moore his wife, the daughter of the testator, against the trustees Abbott and Chapman, and all other persons interested in the testator's estate under the will, praying the establishment of the will, and the directions of the Court as to the execution of the trusts. It appeared, by the answer of the trustees, that the rents of the freehold and copyhold estates of the testator amounted together to about 8001. a year, and that the fines to be paid immediately on the admission of the trustees to the copyhold estates amounted to 14001., besides the expenses.

Mr. Bickersteth, for the Plaintiffs.

Two questions are raised by this will: first, as to the fund out of which the fines due on the admission of the trustees to the copyhold part of the property are to be paid; and, secondly, whether any and what contribution is to be made by the tenant for life towards the payment of such fines and expenses.

It has been decided that, where a testator directs a renewal of leaseholds out of the rents and profits of his estates, such a direction is equivalent to a power to raise the gross sum necessary for the payment of the fines upon renewal by sale or mortgage; the ground of this decision being that, as the sum to be raised must be paid immediately, whenever the occasion for renewal arises, it cannot be intended that it should be raised out of the annual rents and profits: Allan v. Backhouse. (a) In this case the testator directs that the sums which may from time to time be necessary to pay the fines upon admission to his copyhold estates be raised out of the rents and profits, or

by (a) 2 V. & B.65.

1833.

PLAYTERS

Автотт.

by mortgage, sale, or other disposition of the whole estates devised by his will. If the words out of the rents and profits, without more, give a power to the trustees to raise by mortgage or sale, the addition of the words to which they are equivalent cannot alter the force of the prior expressions. But, if the raising out of rents and profits is to be considered as contradistinguished from the raising by mortgage or sale, so that “rents and profits" must necessarily be taken to mean annual rents and profits, then, reddendo singula singulis, these annual rents and profits will be properly applicable to the payment of the further charges which the testator goes on to specify, namely, repairs, land-tax, quit-rent, and other annual outgoings, while the gross sums immediately required for the payment of fines upon admissions will be properly raisable by mortgage or sale of the testator's estates.

Where a fund can be raised by mortgage, a court of equity will not permit the interests of the reversioner to be defeated by a sale. Assuming, therefore, that the fund, out of which the fines are from time to time to be paid, is to be raised by mortgage, the next question is, whether this charge is to be borne by the tenant for life, or by the persons entitled in remainder; and if by both, in what manner the charge is to be apportioned; a subject which has been frequently discussed in this Court, but which is still in an unsettled and unsatisfactory state. The rule adopted in the old cases was, that the tenant for life should pay one third, and that the remaining two thirds should be paid by the person entitled in remainder: Ballet v. Sprainger (a), Cornish v. Ver. (6) This rule was manifestly arbitrary, and unequal in its operation, inasmuch as a tenant for life of advanced years would pay more than his fair

proportion, Pr. Ch. 62.

6) i Ch. Ca. 271.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

proportion, while a younger life would probably reap
the whole benefit of the renewed term to the great
prejudice of the remainder-man. The rule was, for this
reason, disapproved of by Lord Hardwicke in Verney
v. Verney (a); and Lord Thurlow, in Nightingale v.
Lawson (6), introduced a sounder principle; namely,
that the barthen should be borne by the parties in pro-
portion to the benefit which they enjoyed. In Stone v.
Theed (c), the old rule is considered as exploded; and
the general principle, that the proportion should follow
the enjoyment, is again laid down by Lord Thurlow.
In Buckeridge v. Ingram (d), it is said by Lord Alvanley
“the rule is clear that, wherever a lease that requires
renewal is entailed, and a partial interest is given to any
one, that person is not to bear the whole, but will only
have to keep down the interest of the money advanced.”
In White v. White (e), this subject underwent much dis-
cussion: in that case the tenant for life was also entitled
to the reversion after an estate tail; but Lord Alvanley,
notwithstanding that circumstance, adhered to the rule
that the tenant in possession was only to keep down the
interest of the sum raised for renewal. At the rehearing
of this cause Lord Eldon (g) did not accede to this rule
without modification; but he considered it applicable to
cases where the remainder-man takes the estate subject to
a mortgage or charge upon the corpus of the estate: and
the present case may be considered, as well upon the
authority of Allan v. Backhouse (h) as upon the language
of the particular instrument, to be a case of that de-
scription. In Milles v. Milles (i), the fines were
decreed to be raised out of the rents and profits, but

there

[merged small][ocr errors]

1833.

PLAYTERS

ABBOTT.

there the circumstances were extremely special, the
renewals being made annually; and the tenant for life
had the means of recouping himself, as he was de-
clared entitled to the fines payable upon the granting
of underleases. In Randall v. Russell (a), it was held
that the persons entitled in remainder under the trusts
of a will should contribute to the fine paid by the tenant
for life on the renewal of a college lease, in such pro-
portions as should be settled by the Master. In Allan
v. Backhouse, which was confirmed on appeal (6) by
Lord Eldon, Sir Thomas Plumer directed a reference to
the Master to inquire what proportion of the capital, as
well as the interest, should be paid by the tenant for
life with reference to the benefit derived by him. In
Milsintown v. Lord Portmore (c), it was held that a
discretionary power of renewal given to trustees was a
power which they could exercise only for the benefit of
the cestui que trusts, and that they could not throw the
burthen of the fines paid for renewal upon the corpus of
the estate, to the prejudice of the remainder-man. Such
is the state of the authorities on this subject; and the
current of these authorities seems undoubtedly in favour
of the principle that the tenant for life ought not to pay
more than the interest of the sum to be raised for pay-
ment of the fines. If, however, the Court should be of
opinion that the tenant for life is to bear a proportion of
the capital sum to be raised for the payment of the fines
upon admission, the question arises, how that proportion
is to be settled between the tenant for life and the
remainder-man ? The principle is admitted, that the
proportion in which the tenant for life should contribute
is according to his enjoyment; and the fair amount of
his contribution upon that principle is capable of being

reduced (a) 3 Mer. 190.

(c) s Mad. 491., and 5 Mad. (1) Jaa 631.

472.

1833.

PLAYTERS

ABBOTT.

reduced to a certainty by insuring the lives of the trustees who are admitted from time to time, so that, upon the death of the trustees, a fund might always be ready to answer the payment of the fines, the person in actual possession paying the annual premiums upon the policy. It is clear, in this case, that the charge cannot be raised out of the annual rents and profits, for the lord will not wait for his fine; and there are provisions in the will, such as the direction to pay to the widow a clear annuity of 250l. out of the rents and profits, and after her death to pay the clear rents and profits to the daughter for her life, which are wholly inconsistent with an intention on the part of the testator that the fines should be satisfied otherwise than by a charge on the corpus of the estate.

Mr. Tinney, contrà.

The trust is here not merely to pay and satisfy the fines upon admission to the copyholds, but to keep the premises in repair, and to pay the land-tax, quit-rents, and other annual outgoings; and, though the testator gives the trustees a discretion to satisfy these charges, either out of the rents and profits, or by mortgage or sale, the inference is, as he has classed the fines upon admission to the copyholds with charges in their nature payable out of the annual rents and profits, that he meant the whole to be borne by the tenant in possession. In Stone v. Theed, where the testator directed his trustees to pay the fines of renewals, and gave his freehold, leasehold, and personal property, charged with annuities, in trust to pay the rents and profits to his sister for her life, Lord Thurlow held that the intent of keeping up the estate must be understood to be paramount to the intent of making a provision for the first taker, and he accordingly decided that the

produce

« PreviousContinue »