New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-14
FAT APPRAISERS FEES,
THE COURT OF APPEALS CRITICISES SUR
ROGATE ARNOLD.
1T REvERsEs HIS DECISION ALLOWING $500 FOR
WORK WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN
A FEW HOURS-P PECULIAR PRACTICES
ALLOWED IN THE stRRO-

ALLOWED IN THE suRRO-
GATES COURT.
The Court OF Appeals has just raped Surro
gate j. II V. Arnold over the knckles very
sharply for allowing an exorbitant fee to the
appraisers Of estate which passed through
the Surrogate's office. The controversy over
the personal estate OF Samuel c. Harriet which
consisted of twenty-seven different kinds of rail-
road and corporate bonds and securities and the
furniture in his house at No. 454 West Twenty
third-st. The New-York Life Insurance and
Trust Company named as executor Of Mr.
Harriot's estate. on May 49, 1891. On June a.
1891 the Surrogate appointed William L. Morgan
and John ]. Cullen as appraisers Of the estate
In September 1893 the executor began an action
In the Supreme Court TO have its account ex-
amncd and passed. and in November Of that
year John II. Judge vas appointed referee to
hear and determine the account. Emmet Il
Robinson appeared as attorneys for the Life In
surance and Trust Company. A. II. Wright repre-
sented the widow and a daughter OF Mr. Harrot
and Augustus c. Brown represented another
daughter and a guardian ad htem OF two IN
FAINT grandchildren
Mr. Wright and Mr. Brown objected strenu-
ously to the items in the account of 500 each 10
the two appraiser for their fees. w. l. Morgan
ono q, tho annrasors was called to testify fore
the referee as io his services. and said ne couid
not tell the details Of his services as an ap-
priiscr or the exact number ~ days employed
or whether he was at the testator's house more
than twice. or what he did on each day The
law allows only g. day for each DAY actually
employed 10y an appraiser nl an estate ~ TINS
kind. and Mr. Morgan when he was asked the
direct nuostion whether he was fifty days In max
ing the appraisal answered II think was more
than fifty dlys but cannot tell the exact num-
bcr but I know | was rlore than hfty days.
The other appraiser was not examined. MIS-
U,rrio' the widow. testified that the appraisers
were a, the house only once In making the APP
prsisal
HOW THE ORDER WAS SECURED
While those proceedings were pending before
,h. referee the attorneys for the executor went
- the Surrogate's Court. all. without giving any
notice whatsoever 90 the attorneys for the wa W
d,ugbtars and grandchllarcn. and without snow
Ing I'm their moving papers that any action was
,,nding IN the Suprem" Court for a settlement
~ a.. account u thr executor. procured an order
from Surrogate Arnold taxing the foes 81 each
,,,r,t..r ~ $3.50. TIL, aniIavlts on which this
order was secured were made by the TWO APP
n~alscr. and simply stat"o that they were
ac,n,lly employed more than hfiy days IN max
ing ,hc appraisal or inventory ~ the personal
estate of NJ Harrio;. Thar was practically all
,herc vas - the afiiavi's. with the exception
q, tho formal recitals. The N"w-fofk LII" IN
surance and Trus, Company. as executors waived
1T. ~ ,he application for the taxation OF fees.
II >,essrs Emnei Il Robinson. attorneys Tor
~. oxe,,,,ors consented 20 the entry OF the
order - ,oo.
,,,.r ,he entry ~ thi. order. on June -. 1871
. No. ,0.red In evidence t. the referee VINO
,,,ed Z, Despite the fact that the code re-
ouires tha, the appraisers fees must DE hNen
H., ,he surrogate before they ar" PAID hv the
,xecu,or II appeared that the executor In ms
.,s. had paid these fees long before. without
having secured any authority whatever FOR DOING
so in III, nature - an order from the o"rros'''
,,,., this order was presented T. the referee
Mr. Brown made motion before the surrogate 10
So. aside and resct;lc the order. In his afidaVt
no showed that the estate consisted oi only 'he
household furniture and "A number of securities
Tn. household furniture had already beeh APP
nra,sed bv A MI DcWatcarss. who had received
$50 % for his services. He als' showed tha' the
securities could have been appraiser III one ""'
-. ,,s,, f. the Ncw-York Stock Exchange. or at
tho Office 4 any active broker. and that AZ mat
for a., fact he believed the appraisal had been
D1t! !e "A
All the appra!sors had done was 10 look over the
No, -, securities and see that il Tailed with those
actually belonging to the cstai" MI Brown de-
,,,rcI that from these facts the amount charged
-, ,h. annr,isors was grossly cxorbtant. and that
ia. ,h,Io appraisal Of the entire personal estate
could have been made In one day ~ the most Tor
which the appraisers were entitled to = each.
40 AFFIDAviTs SUBMITTED.
-, all ~ these facts no afidavits were sub
,od h,. tho appraisers or by the executor. or the
a,,ornovs renresenting them. in denial. In spite
~, ,,is Surrogate Arnold wrote a short memoran-
d,,o In denylug the motion 10 vacate the order
,o,l,,, the apnraiscis these largo amounts IN
.n,,b NJ. said: The appraisers anidavits SHOW
that they were respectively employed more than
Gfty days upon the appraisal in his case Inc
estate is large and cannot say from an inspec-
,ion of the account and inventory that tn" APP
praiscrs' statements arc improbable The 'Ne'u-
for wh, had knowledge certainly as T. III" char-
meter and extent Of the work done assents 10 'n'
charges allowed. which have been duly iiXeh ana
,axod and long since paid by the executor ana
4, NOT feel justified in making any change there
in"
A. hosnra said this was in spite of the SPECIFIC
nr,vislon OF the code that appraisers Tees must
n. taxed and allowed by the Surrogat" p'i"''
thov are paid by tho executor and all the undc-
Mod assertions in the anidavts In favor of tho
,,o,ion that the charges were grossly exorbtant
and that It was plain that the appraisers cou' not
fairly have been employed anything Ike nfty days
I'm comparing a lot OF securities ana ho"s'n'r"
furniture with lists which they already had made
ont for them by other people.
From the order Of the Surrogate The hcirs APP
pealcd TO the General Term Of the supreme court
whore the decision Of the Surrogate was ahirined'
with no opinion Of any kind. The heirs fe'' aR-
gricved however. and took the case 10 the court
OF Appeals and tho court Of last resort haued
Surrogate Arnold over the Goals In hVely man
ner
OPINION OF JUDGE HAIGiiT
In the decision Of the Court OF Appeals. In an
opinion written by Judge Haght the court says;