Wingert v. Albert

Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. P. Hager Wingert, of Washington County, died intestate on or about July 23rd, 1913, and the appellants, Henry E. Wingert and William Wingert were appointed administrators of his estate. On February 20, 1914, upon the nomination of the administrators, the Orphans’ Court of Washington County appointed Elmer A. Corderman and Claude K. Humrichouse to appraise the real estate of the deceased for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of collateral inheritance tax upon his interest in certain real estate mentioned in the proceedings. Hpon certain proceedings had in the Orphans’ Court of Washington County, that Court on October 3, 1914, ordered that the “administrators withdraw the inventory and appraisement returned by them on the 5th day of August, 1914; that they nominate for appointment by the Court two other qualified persons to appraise the real estate of P. Hager Wingert, deceased, and that they include in the inventory and appraisement returned by them, the six parcels of real estate of which Eliza J. Wingert died seized and possessed, mentioned in the testimony given in these proceedings.” From this order the administrators and the appraisers have appealed. ⁸² This Court on the former appeal (Wingert v. State, 125 Md. 536 ) decided, “that it was entirely within the power and jurisdiction of the Orphans’ Court to entertain and determine the question of an additional and amended inventory and appraisement of the real estate of the deceased, in this case, and the Court having jurisdiction had the right to hear and receive evidence in relation to it.” But the Court did not agree with that portion of the order which, directed the administrators to nominate for appointment two other appraisers in lieu of those appointed by the order of Eel> ruary 20, 1914.

Upon this part of the order the Court said: “We can not, however, concur in that part of the order directing the administrators to nominate for appointment by the Court two other qualified persons to appraise the real estate of the deceased for the purposes indicated, so long as the order of the Court of the 20th of February, 1914, and the warrant issued in pursuance thereof, appointing the appraisers, remained in full force and unrevoked. Messrs. Cordorman and Humrichouse had been duly appointed and constituted the appraisers, under section 124 of Article 81 of the Code, to value the real estate of the deceased, and there is nothing in the record to show that they had been removed by the Court prior to the order in this case. It would clearly have been competent and entirely within the power of the Orphans’ Court, upon charges of incompetency, neglect of duty, or unfaithful conduct, injurious to the interest of the estate, if sustained by proof and upon a hearing, to have removed either the administrators or the appraisers and to have appointed others in their places. * * * We will, therefore, reverse that part of the order which directs the administrators to nominate for appointment two other qualified persons to appraise the real estate of the deceased, but will afiinn the order in other respects as to filing an amended and additional inventory and remand the cause for further proceedings.” Accordingly the order was affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and the case remanded.

Thereafter, on May 14, 1915, the State of Maryland by Scott M. ⁸³ Wolfinger, the State’s Attorney for Washington County, filed a petition in the Orphans’ Court in the matter of the estate of P. Hager Wingert, deceased, asking that Elmer A. Corderman and Claude K. Humrichouse, the appraisers, and each of them be cited by the Court “to show cause why they and each of them should not be removed as such appraisers, and others appointed in their place and stead.” The grounds upon which this application was based are set out in the petition. First: “That the State of Maryland is interested in the appraisement of the real estate of P. Hager Wingert, deceased, by virtue of the collateral inheritance tax due the said State thereon; and that a correct and fair appraisement of the said real estate should be made to the end that the amount of collateral inheritance tax due the said State may be collected thereon.” Secondly: “That the said appraisers in making the said appraisement were incompetent, neglected their duty as such appraisers, and that by their unfaithful conduct the interests of your petitioner were injured;