#### *Ex Parte,*Frederick Rutledge, *Ex'or. of*Wm. Rutledge.

*Donee, to whom the dividends of Bank Stock were given for*life„ *for his maintenance, “ to he paid half yearly, as they shall be received from the bank,'’' died a few days before a semi-annual dividend ivas declared:*Decreed *that the dividend should he apportioned, and the amount which had accrued at the do-nee’s death should be paid to his executor.*

This case camebeforethe court on a petition, setting iorth that Mrs. Ann Coslctt executed a deed on the 17th April, 1816, by which she assigned to trustees certain shares in the Planters* & Mechanics’ Bank, of Charleston, “ in trust nevertheless, to *66receive the dividends on the same, and pay and apply the same half yearly, as they shall be received from the bank, unto the said Ann Grimke Rutledge and her husband, William Rutledge, to and for their joixt use, maintenance and support, during their joint lives, free and exonerated from the debts, contracts and engagements of the said William Rutledge; and from and after the decease of either of them, in trust to pay and apply the dividends aforesaid, in manner aforesaid, to *the*survivor during-his or her natural life, and from and after the death of the said survivor, then in trust to transfer the said bank shares to me, the said Ann Cosslett, my executors or administrators, for the alone and sole purpose of securing the same to my son, Charles Grimke Cosslett, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns; or to such persons or person, as he may have bequeathed the same by his will.” '

William Rutledge having survived his wife, received the dividends on the said stock to the 1st day of January, 1833, and died in the month of June following, only a few days bo-fore the semi-annual dividends were declared. The petition alledged that he had no other maintenance than what was derived from these dividends, and that he died greatly indebted to the petitioner, who had made considerable advances to him, relying on a reimbursement from this fund. The petitioner is the executor of William Rutledge, and now prayed that *so*much of the said dividends as accrued up to the time of his death, should be paid to him. The trustees and attorneys of Mrs. Cosslett and her son opposed this .application, on the ground that the said dividends are not subject *to*an apportionment.

Chancellor *Walies,*

I think the claim of the petitioner is a just one, and comes within the general rule adopted by the court on the subject. An entire interest, which only accrues at particular periods, cannot be apportioned, because it is not sus-ceptable of any intermediate division, and therefore it was necessary in England to provide by a positive statute for the apportionment of rent. But it appears from all the cases which have been referred to, that wherever an interest is daily *67
      *accruing, it*may be apportioned; as in the case of interest on a bond, which accrues de die in diem. *(Banner,*vs. *Lowe,*13 *Ves.*135) So when the fund is provided for maintenance, which is still more favored. “ This (says the court in *Hay,*vs. *Palmer, 2 P. W.*503) is a stronger case than that of interest, for it is for daily support.” The present claim is of that nature, it is expressly declared by the deed of Mrs. Cosslett, that the dividends on the stock settled, were intended as maintenance, and there is reason to believe that the advances made by the petitioner to his testator were on the credit of them. They were the only funds on which the testator depended for subsistence and they were daily accruing; for although payable only half yearly, yet they arose out of the daily profits of the bank, which might be ascertained at any intermediate time. It is therefore ordered and decreed, that it be referred to the commissioner to ascertain the amount of the dividends which had accrued at the time of the death of the petitioner’s testator, on the stock settled on him for life, and that the same be paid to the petitioner as his executor.

. On appeal, *GrimUe*for the appellents argued that there could be no apportionment in such a case, and cited 3 *Atk.*503: *Amb.*279; 2 *Ves.*672. Decree affirmed by the whole court.