case CLYAT versus BATTESON June in court Eq can ab pl S g land in mortgage  devise to a for life remainder to b in fee a take a assignment of this  mortgage in a trustee name b may compel a to contribute a three of the  mortgage in respect of his estate for life otherwise if the tenant for life be  dead and a bill be bring against his executor land in mortgage be devise to a  for life remainder to b and his heir a enter and buy in the mortgage take a  assignment in trustee name and die b the remainderman now prefer his bill  against the defendant the representative of a to redeem the mortgage and his  counsel insist that he ought to pay but twothirds of what be due on the  mortgage and the other three ought to be allow by the defendant by reason that  the tenant for life enjoy the profit during his life per cur have you come to  redeem in the lifetime of the tenant for life then he shall have allow a  proportion of the money with respect to the value of the respective estate of  the tenant for life and remainderman but he be now dead and have enjoy the  estate but one year only the defendant must make a allowance only for the time  that a enjoy the estate Reg lib a fol this point do not appear in the register  book vide burn v best ante p and case cite in note there viner title mort et  vide Verney v Verney Amb ves SC where say that the computation of tenant for  life bear onethird have former be consider by the court and particular by Lord  Macclesfield to be a wrong rule as be too low and the rule be afterward  consider to be that the tenant for life shall keep down the interest like the  devisee of a mortgage estate white v white Ves et vide countess of Shrewsbury  v earl of Shrewsbury Ves jun S p but in the same case of white v white Ves  which come on upon appeal and where the subject be a good deal discuss the  doctrine promulgate by the court be that tenant for life in general case where  he be bind to pay any thing beyond the interest be bind to pay in proportion  to the benefit he de facto take under the transaction and that the  remainderman ought also to pay with reference to his proportion of the benefit  ibidem but note in that case testator have provide a fund for renewal and  therefore no decree upon the point in question Allen v backhouse v b and see  note z to Addis v clement p wms that Ed Vernon chancery case de term S  michaelis James h in curian porter