(A) With regard to the former of these classes, it may be noticed that although apportioned rent becomes payable only when the whole rent is due, the landlord, in the case of the bankruptcy of an ordinary tenant, may prove for a proportionate part of the rent up to the date of the receiving order (Bankruptcy Act 1883, Sched. ii. r. 19); and that a similar rule holds good in the winding up of a company (in re South Kensington Co-operative Stores, 1881, 17 Ch.D. 161); and further that the act of 1870 applies to the liability to pay, as well as to the right to receive, rent (in re Wilson, 1893, 62 L.J.Q.B. 628, 632). Accordingly where an assignment of a lease is made between two half-yearly rent-days, the assignee is not liable to pay the full amount of the half-year’s rent falling due on the rent-day next after the date of the assignment, but only an apportioned part of that half-year’s rent, computed from the last mentioned date (Glass v. Patterson, 1902, 2 Ir.R. 660).
(B.) With regard to the apportionment of income, the only points requiring notice here are that all dividends payable by public companies are apportionable, whether paid at fixed periods or not, unless the payment is, in effect, a payment of capital (§ 5).
The Apportionment Act 1870 extends to Scotland and Ireland. It has been followed in many of the British colonies (e.g. Ontario, Rev. Stats., 1897, c. 170, §§ 4-8; New Zealand, No. 4 of 1886; Tasmania, No. 8 of 1871; Barbados, No. 12 of 1891, §§ 9-12). Similar legislation has been adopted in many of the states of the American Union, where, as in England, rent was not, at common law, apportionable as to time (Kent, Comm. iii. 469-472).
An equitable apportionment, apart from statute law, arises where property is bequeathed on trust to pay the income to a tenant for life and the reversion to others, and the realization of the property in the form of a fund capable of producing income is postponed for the benefit of the estate. In such cases there is an ultimate apportionment between the persons entitled to the income and those entitled to the capital of the accumulations for the period of such postponement. The rule followed is this: the proceeds, when realized, are apportionable between capital and income by ascertaining the sum which, put out and accumulated at 3% per annum from the day of the testator’s death (with yearly rents and deducting income tax) would have produced at the day of receipt the sum actually received. The sum so ascertained should be treated as capital and the residue as income. (In re Earl of Chesterfield’s Trusts, 1883, 24 Ch.D. 643; In re Goodenough, 1895, 2 Ch. 537; Rowlls v. Bebb, 1900, 2 Ch. 107.)
In addition to the authorities cited in the text, see Stroud, Jud. Dict. (2nd ed., London, 1903), s.v. “Apportion”; Bouvier, Law Dict. (London and Boston, 1897), s.v. “Apportionment”; Ruling Cases (London, 1895), tit. “Apportionment”; Fawcett, Landlord and Tenant (London, 1905), pp. 238 et seq.; Foa, Landlord and Tenant (3rd ed., London, 1901), pp. 112 et seq.
(A. W. R.)
APPORTIONMENT BILL, an act passed by the Congress of the United States after each decennial census to determine the number of members which each state shall send to the House of Representatives. The ratio of representation fixed by the original constitution was 1 to 30,000 of the free population, and the number of the members of the first House was 65. As the House would, at this ratio, have become unmanageably large, the ratio, which is first settled by Congress before apportionment, has been raised after each census, as will be seen from the accompanying table.
| Under | Census | Apportionment | Whole Number of Repre- sentatives. | ||
| Year | Population | Year | Ratio | ||
| Constitution | · · | · · | 1789 | 30,000 | 65 |
| First Census | 1790 | 3,929,214 | 1793 | 33,000 | 105 |
| Second Census | 1800 | 5,308,483 | 1803 | 33,000 | 141 |
| Third Census | 1810 | 7,239,881 | 1813 | 35,000 | 181 |
| Fourth Census | 1820 | 9,633,822 | 1823 | 40,000 | 213 |
| Fifth Census | 1830 | 12,866,020 | 1833 | 47,700 | 240 |
| Sixth Census | 1840 | 17,069,453 | 1843 | 70,680 | 223 |
| Seventh Census | 1850 | 23,191,876 | 1853 | 93,423 | 234 |
| Eighth Census | 1860 | 31,443,321 | 1863 | 127,381 | 241 |
| Ninth Census | 1870 | 38,558,371 | 1873 | 131,425 | 292 |
| Tenth Census | 1880 | 50,155,783 | 1883 | 151,911 | 325 |
| Eleventh Census | 1890 | 62,622,250 | 1893 | 173,901 | 356 |
| Twelfth Census | 1900 | 75,568,686 | 1903 | 194,182 | 386 |
The same term is applied to the acts passed by the state legislatures for correcting and redistributing the representation of the counties. Such acts are usually passed at decennial intervals, more often after the federal census, but the dates may vary in different states. The state representatives are usually apportioned among the several counties according to population and not by geographical position. The electoral districts so formed are expected to be equal in proportion to the number of inhabitants; but this method has led to much abuse in the past, through the making of unequal districts for partisan purposes. (See [Gerrymander].)