Court Opinion

ID: 9462910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:53:16.12867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:50.737484
License: Public Domain

*361ADAMS, Circuit Judge,

concurring

Although I join in the opinion of the Court, an additional point, I believe, deserves emphasis.
One cannot avoid noting that the original appraisers, whose valuation of No. 18 Estate Smith Bay has been rejected, were appointed by the district court. For a court to disregard the valuation made by its court-appointed appraisers may be disturbing to those who are interested in efficient and even-handed administration of the law, and even more to those who are concerned for the appearance of fairness in the courts.1 Such apprehension, I fear, is not dissipated by the explanation that “the practice [at the time of the appraisal] was to appoint as appraisers retired or semi-retired gentlemen who, as a sinecure, would accept assignment. They were seldom, if ever, noted for their competence as real estate appraisers. . . .” Since appraisals for inventories are required by law to be conducted “by two disinterested and competent persons . . .,”2 it must be hoped that the appointments practice described by the district court has now been changed.3
Be that as it may, I cannot say, on the basis of the record before us, that the finding of fact by the district judge with respect to the value of the property in question is clearly erroneous.4 Thus, I concur in the conclusion reached by the majority.

 There is no suggestion of any impropriety whatsoever in the judgment of the district court, but “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” Offut v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954) (Frankfurter, J.); see Kramer v. Scientific Control Corp., No. 75-1673, at 6 (3d Cir. 1976).

 15 V.I.C. § 314(a) (1964).

 We note that both district judges for the Virgin Islands were appointed subsequent to the appraisal at issue here.

 See Fed. Rules of Civ. Proc. 52.