65. Todd's Ex'r v. First Nat Bank, 173 Ky. 60, 190 S. W. 468; Wheeler v. Addison, 54 Md. 41; Plympton v. Boston Dispensary 106 Mass. 544; Bowen v. Brogan, 119 Mich. 218, 75 Am. St. Rep. 387, 77 N. W. 942; Whitney v. Salter, 36 Minn. 103, 1 Am. St Rep. 656, 30 N. W. 755; Callicott v. Parks, 58 Miss. 528; Tindall v Peterson, 71 Neb. 160, 8 Ann. Cas. 721, 99 N. W. 659, 98 N. W. 688; Donovan v. Smith (N. J. Ch.), 88 Atl. 167; Cogswell v. Cogswell, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 231; Chamber-lin v. Gleason, 163 N. Y. 214, 57 N. E. 487; Jones v. Sherrard, 22 N. C. (2 Dev. & B. Eq.) 179; Hunt v. Watkins, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 498; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 487; 4 Kent, Comm. 74. Aliter if the creator of the estate provided some other method for payment. Fuller v. Devolld, 144 Mo. App 93, 128 S. W. 1011; Kincheloe v. Gibson's Ex'x, 115 Va. 119, 78 S E. 603.

66. Magness v. Harris, 80 Ark. 583, 98 S. W. 362; Hagan v. Var-ney, 147 111. 281, 35 N. E. 219; Clark v. Middlesworth, 82 Ind.

240; Gates v. Wirth, - Iowa

- , 163 N. W. 215; Johnson v.

Smith, 5 Bush. (Ky.) 102; Stetson v. Day, 51 Me. 434; Roche v. Waters, 72 Md. 264, 7 L. R. A.

533, 19 Atl. 535; Jenks v. Horton, 96 Mich. 13, 55 N. W. 372; Bone v. Tyrrell, 113 Mo. 175, 20 S. W. 796; King v. Boettcher, 96 Neb. 319, 147 N. W. 836; In re Morton's Estate, 74 N. J. Eq. 797, 70 Atl. 680; Deraismes v. Deraismes, 72 N. Y. 154; Smith v. Miller, 158 N. C. 98, 73 S. E. 118; Aber-nethy v. Orton, 42 Ore. 437, 95 Am. St. Rep. 774, 71 Pac. 327; Phelan v. Boylan, 25 Wis. 679.

As to the personal liability of the life tenant to the remainder man by reason of the former's failure to pay taxes, see post Sec. 279.

That the mortgagee of the life tenant, if in possession, cannot purchase at tax sale, see Wiswell v. Simmons, 77 Kan. 622, 95 Pac. 407.

67. Clark v. Middlesworth, 82 Ind. 240; Murch v. J. O. Smith Mfg. Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 193, 20 Atl. 213; In re Morton's Estate, 74 N. J. Eq. 797, 70 Atl. 680; Aber-nethy v. Orton, 42 Ore. 437, 95 Am. St. Rep. 774, 71 Pac. 327; Sheffield v. Cooke, 39 R. I. 217, Ann. Cas. 1918E 961, 98 Atl. 161; See Editorial note, 16 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 597.

68. Pruitt v. Holly 73 Ala 369; Alleman v. Kelgore, 52 Iowa 38, 2 N. W. 612; Menger v.

Municipal assessments for improvements of a permanent or quasi permanent character are to be apportioned upon an equitable basis between the life tenant and remainderman,69 though if for improvements so temporary in character that they will probably not outlast the life tenant's life, they must be borne by him alone.70

Since in the case of an encumbrance, the tenant for life is liable for the interest during his life, and for that alone, it follows that, if the incumbrance is paid off, or is to be paid off, during his life, he is liable for such portion of the payment as is represented by the present worth of an annuity, equal to the annual interest, computed with reference to the probable duration of the life, having regard not only to his age but also to his health and habits, using mortality tables to assist in the computation, while for the balance the remainderman is liable.71 And a like rule is applicable in conCarruthers, 57 Kan. 425, 46 Pac. 712; Varney v. Stevens, 22 Me. 331; Solis v. Williams, 205 Mass. 350, 91 N. E. 148; Defreese v. Lakek, 109 Mich. 415, 63 Am. St. Rep. 584, 67 N. W. 505, 32 L. R. A. 744: Mansfield v. Neff, 43 Utah 258, 134 Pac. 1160.

That the life tenant's wife cannot do so, see Boon v. Root. 137 Wis. 451, 119 N. W. 121; Whitfield v. Miles, 101 Miss. 734, 58 So. 8.

69. Ure v. Ure, 223 111. 454, 114 Am. St. Rep. 336, 79 N. E. 153; Kline v. Dowling, 176 Ind. 521, 96 N. E. 579; Plympton v. Boston Dispensary, 106 Mass. 544, 547; Reyburn v. Wallace, 93 Mo. 326, 3 S. W. 482; Outcalt v. Appleby, 36 N. J. Eq. 73, 80 (compare Per-rine's Ex'rs v. Newell, 62 N. J. Eq. 14, 49 Atl. 724); Thomas v. Evans, 105 N. Y. 601, 59 Am. Rep. 519, 12 N. E. 571; Moore v.

Simonson, 27 Ore. 117, 39 Pac. 1105; Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Babbitt, 22 R. I. 113, 46 Atl. 403; Stahl v. Schwartz, 81 Wash. 293, 142 Pac. 651; see post note 72.

70. Troy v. Protestant Episcopal Church, 174 Ala. 380, Ann. Cas. 1914B 815, 56 So. 982; Huston v. Tribbetts, 171 111. 547, 63 Am. St. Rep. 275, 49 N. E. 711; Reyburn v. Wallace, 93 Mo. 326, 3 S. W. 482; Hitner v. Ege, 23 Pa. St. 305; See Delker v. City of Owensboro, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 440 98 S. W. 1031.

In Hackworth v. Louisville Artificial Stone Co., 106 Ky. 234, 50 S. W. 33, the expense of laying a new sidewalk, although under orders from the city, was regarded as for an ordinary repair, to be paid entirely by the life tenant.

71. 1 Story, Eq. Sec. 487; 4 Kent,

Real Property.

[ Sec. 33 nection with the payment of a municipal assessment for a permanent improvement, this being in effect an incumbrance on the property.72

In case of the voluntary sale of the property, involving the immediate realization of the purchase price, a rule analogous to that above referred to has been applied, the tenant for life receiving the present value of the various interest payments which he might have been expected to make,73 though another method of apportionment is sometimes availed of, by which the life tenant is given the interest during his life on the fund realized, and the remainderman the principal on the life tenant's death.74

In case of the enforcement of an encumbrance on the property by reason of a default on the part of the life tenant, in the payment of interest or otherwise, he cannot, it has been held, be the purchaser at the foreclosure sale75 and apart from any question of default on his part, it has been considered that there is, between life tenant and remainderman, such a relation of confidence that if the life tenant purchases at foreclosure sale, or otherwise acquires a paramount title, the remainderman is entitled, upon contributing to the purchase price, to share in the benefit of the purchase.76

Comm. 75; Abney v. Abney, 182 Ala. 213, 62 So. 64; Van Vronker v. Eastman, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 157; Fuller v. Devolld, 144 Mo. App. 93, 128 S. W. 1011; Peck v. Glass, 6 How. (Miss.) 195; Draper v Clayton, 87 Neb. 443, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 153, 127 N. W. 369; Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 482, 9 Am. Dec. 318; McAr-thur v. Franklin, 16 Ohio St. 193; See Jones v. Gilbert, 135 111. 27 25 N. E. 566; Donovan v. Smith (N. J. Ch.), 88 Atl. 167.

It was decided by Story, J., that. the duration of the life estate should be determined by such a calculation based upon probabilities, even though its actual duration be determined by the death of the life tenant before the making of the apportionment. Foster v. Hilliard, 1 Story, 77, Fed. Cas. No. 4,972. Contra, Gunning v. Carman, 3 Redf. (N. Y.) 69.

72. Kline v. Dowling, 176 Ind. 521, 96 N. E. 579; Chamberlin v. Gleason, 163 N. Y. 214, 57 N. E. 487; Plympton v. Boston Dispensary, 106 Mass. 544; Moore v. Simonson, 27 Ore. 117, 39 Pac. 1105; Sheffield v. Cooke, 39 R. I. 217, Ann. Cas. 1918E 961, 98 Atl. 161; See Cairns v. Chabert, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 312.

73. Foster v. Hilliard, 1 Story 77, Fed. Cas. No. 4,972. See Ken-iston v. Gorrell, 74 N. H. 53, 64 Atl. 1101.

74. See Datesman's Appeal.. 127 Pa. St. 348, 17 Atl. 1086, 1100; Blakley v. Marshall, 174 Pa. St. 425, 34 Atl. 564; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 487.

75. Werner v. Dolan, 106 Iowa 355, 76 N. W. 724; Bowen v. Bro-gan. 119 Mich. 218, 75, Am. St. Rep. 38, 77 N. W. 942; Lewis v.