Case Name: In re KING
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-12-31
Citations: 67 N.Y.S. 766
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re KING.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 67
Pages: 766–767

Head Matter:
In re KING.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 31, 1900.)
1. Taxation—Transfer Taxes—Appraisers—Appointment.
Where the regular appraisers authorized to be appointed to appraise the estate of decedents, by transfer-tax law of 1900, have not been named, the surrogate has authority to appoint such an appraiser for an estate as he may deem proper.
2. Appeal—Transfer Taxes—Order for Appraisal—Method of Appraisal.
Where the order appointing an appraiser of the estate of a decedent, under the transfer-tax law of 1900, also directed the method of appraisement, an appeal from that part of the order will be dismissed, since the proper time to determine whether correct principles of appraisement have been followed is after the appraisement has been taken and the appraiser’s report confirmed.
Appeal from surrogate’s court, New York county.
In the matter of the appraisal of the estate of- Henry W. King, deceased, under the transfer-tax act. From an order appointing an appraiser, and directing the manner of appraisement (63 N. Y. -Supp. 1100), the executors of deceased appeal.
Affirmed in part, and dismissed in part.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and RUMSEY, McLAUGELIN, PATTERSON, and O’BRIEN, JJ.
Clarence E. Thornall, for appellants.
W. E. Kissellburgh, Jr., for respondents.

Opinion:
VAN BRUNT, P. J.
So far as the appeal is taken from that part of the' order whereby the surrogate appointed an appraiser, we think the same should be affirmed. There is nothing in this record to show that the appraisers authorized to be appointed under the act of 1900 had been named, and until that had been done the surrogate had the power and authority to appoint such appraiser as he deemed proper.
As to that part of the appeal which refers to the directions contained in the order as to the methods of appraisement, we think the appeal should be dismissed. After the appraisement has been taken, and the appraiser has reported, and his report has been confirmed by the surrogate, then the court can determine as to whether the correct principles have been followed in fixing the amount of the tax. There will then be before it the full record upon which the appraiser acts.
The order appealed from, so far as the naming of the appraiser is concerned, should be affirmed, and the appeal from the other parts of said order should be dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the respondents. All concur.