It is noticeable that both Tilley and Turner were family disputes that were most unlikely to be appealed, so that, perhaps, the judges allowed themselves a little leeway on the merits of the case , feeling it inequitable to allow the claimant a proportionate share. In Shalson the assets of the claimant had been appropriated by a wrongdoer, who had ultimately dissipated large amounts of the mixed fund. In this sort of scenario it makes sense for the innocent party to be able to claim the wrongdoer used their own assets on these dissipations as far as possible. This dovetails with the general rule of evidence in Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Stra 505 that evidential uncertainty created by wrongdoing will be resolved against the wrongdoer.