Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 01.djvu/786

APPORTIONMENT. APPOR'TIONMENT (Lat. ad, to + portio, part, share, portion). A partition and read- justment of legal rights or obligations to con- form to a change in the relations of the parties thereto, and to adjust their respective interests in the subject-matter affected by the cliange. Apportionment is of frequent occurrence in the law, and may conveniently be considered, first, with reference to the division of claims, or rights, and, second, with reference to the divi- sion of obligations, or burdens.

Apportionment of rights occurs where a per- son having an interest in land or a contract right, entitling him to the use or profits of the land or to payments of money, parts with such right or interest to another, in whole or in part. Thus, if tlie owner of land which is sub- ject to a lease at a fixed rent, sells a portion thereof, the purchaser is entitled to have the entire rent apportioned so that he shall receive the share due from the parcel of which he has become the owner. So, also, apportionment of rent takes place where an entire tenement or estate is partitioned among tenants in com- mon, or passes by will or otherwise to several persons in parcels. Again, if the owner of land under cultivation, for the benefit of such land and of everj' part of it, enjoys an easement or profit u prendre in the land of another, as to take water for irrigation, or manure or sea- weed for fertilizing it, a conveyance of a part of his land carries with it a right to a propor- tionate enjoyment of such easement or profit. This will, of course, be true only in eases where the right so claimed and enjoyed is apportion- able or divisible in its nature. A right of way or a right to pasture one's cattle on a neiglibor's land would not ordinarily be appor- tionable, though it is said that a right to pasture a certain number of cattle may be appor- tioned. The foregoing are all cases of appor- tionment "in respect of the estate or interest enjoyed," and present no great difficulty. But where the apportionment claimed is "in respect of time." as where the new right accrues be- tween fixed periods of payment, the law is not so simple or consistent. At common law, rents, annuities, dividends, and similar payments fall- ing due at fixed periods were not deemed appor- tionable in respect of time. That is to say, if an annual rent or a dividend were due on the first day of January, a conveyance of the land or of the corporate shares on the 31st of December would carry with it the entire rent or dividends. Xo part of it being due until the whole was payable, it was not considered capa- ble of being apportioned. Interest on money loaned was an exception, as in theory of law interest was earned — i.e.. accrued — from day to day (per diem in diem), notwithstanding the fact that by agreement of the parties the pay- ment was postponed to a fixed date. The in- equitable operation of this rule regarding fixed payments and the inconveniences resulting from it have brought about a general change in the law, by statute, both in England and in the United States, and it is now provided that all rents, annuities, dividends, and other periodical payments in the nature of income, are to be considered as accruing from day to day, and to be apportionable in respect of time accordingly. At the present time the question of the appor- tionment of fixed payments presents itself most frequently in connection with the respective claims to income of life tenants and remainder- men, or of the executor of a deceased testator and the person entitled under his will to cor- porate stocks left by him. The calculation of the respective shares of the parties is sometimes intricate and diflicult, depending upon tables of longevity, but the principles governing their interests are as simple as they are just and con- venient.

Apportionment of obligations depends on very different principles from those which result in apportionment of rights or claims. Indeed, it may be asserted, as a general proposition, that burdens are not apportionable. A tenant can- not, by alienating a portion of his tenement, relieve himself of any part of his obligation to pay rent ; nor can a person, by rendering only a part of the service which he has contracted to perform, entitle himself to compensation for the service rendered. Rights are assignable: obli- gations are not assign.able. No man can at his own will, or by his own act, rid himself of a legal duty by transferring it to another. This is true even of burdens which, in theory of law, rest upon land, as mortgages, servitudes, and other incumbrances. The partition of the land among several owners will not, in general, re- lieve any portion thereof of the burden which ' rests upon the whole and upon every part and parcel 1 hereof, although, as between themselves, the several owners may be entitled to an equal- ization of the obligation which each is equally lia- ' ble to perform. (See Contribution; Exonera- tion; SCBROGATION. ) The severity of this rule has been relaxed in a few exceptional cases. Thus, it is held that where a person fails to complete a contract for personal services, in con- sequence of subsequent disability or death, com- pensation may be recovered for the services actu- ally rendered. (See Rescission; Contract.) Again, in cases where a tenant under a rent is evicted from a part of the premises by para- mount title — i.e., by some one having a title superior to that of his landlord — the rent is apportioned, the tenant being liable only for the use and occupation of the part actually retained by him. If. however, the eviction be by the land- lord himself or by a stranger, or even if it be by the destruction of the premises, in whole or in part, there will be no apportionment of the rent, the tenant in the former case being freed from all his obligations under the lease, and in the second case continuing liable for the whole rent, notwithstanding the eviction. See Evic- tion; Landlord and Tenant; Rent; and the authorities noted under the various titles above referred to. APPORTIONMENT BILLS. In the United States, laws passed by Congress after each decennial census, to define the number of members of the House of Representatives to which the several States are entitled. Every State has at least one member. Eleven apportionment bills have been passed. The first constitution adopted by the original thirteen States fixed the number of members at (i5, and the ratio of representation at 30,000- Representative population then meant all free white citizens and three-fifths the number of slaves; two- fifths of the slaves, all aliens, and Indians not taxed, were excluded from any share in choosing members of Congress. The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution conferred the franchise on the emancipated slaves in the South. The following