Wingert v. State

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the Orphans’ Court of Washington County, dated the 30th day of October, 1914. The questions presented by the record arise on a motion to dismiss certain proceedings in that Court in a matter concerning the inventory and appraisement of the real estate of P. Hager Wingert, deceased, returned by the administra ⁵³⁸ tors of his estate and by tbe appraisers appointed to value tbe real estate, for tbe purpose of fixing tbe collateral inheritance tax provided by sections 120 to 144 of Article 81 of the Public General Laws of Maryland. The order appealed against is somewhat unusual and is as follows: Ordered this 30th day of October, A. D. 1914, that the motion made on the 26th day of October, 1914,. by the administrators of P. Hager Wingert, deceased, and the appraisers appointed to appraise the real estate of said deceased, to dismiss the proceedings as to said appraisement, be and the same is hereby overruled; that the said administrators withdrew 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.

It is further ordered that the costs of these proceedings shall be paid out of the estate of said P. Hager Wingert, deceased. The substantial facts, upon which the proceedings are based, are these: P. Hager Wingert, of Washington County, died intestate, on or about July 23rd, 1913, and letters of administration were granted by the Orphans’ Court of Washington County upon bis estate to Henry E. Wingert and William Wingert, two- brothers of the deceased, the appellants here. He died without children, but left certain brothers and sisters, as his heirs at law. On the 20th of February, 1914, upon nomination of the administrators, two appraisers were appointed to appraise the real estate of the deceased for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the collateral inheritance tax to be charged for the use of the State, on the real estate passing to his brothers and sisters. ⁵³⁹ On the 5th of August, 1914, an inventory and appraisement of six parcels of real estate, situate in Washington County, was returned to the Court at a valuation of. $81,-315.00 and in the return it was stated, that P. Hager Wingert was at the time of his death seized and possessed of an undivided one^seventh interest in this property, to wit, $11,-616..43.

The Orphans’ Court declined to accept this inventory and appraisement as returned as a true inventory and a correct valuation of the real estate left by the deceased, and thereupon, on the Tth day of August, 1914, directed the administrators and appraisers to be cited and summoned to appear on the 14th of August, 1914, and show cause why there should not be returned an additional and amended inventory and appraisement of the real estate of the deceased. The administrators appeared in response to the summons, and after a hearing, upon full proof, on both sides, and after argument by counsel for the respective parties, the Orphans’ Court held, as set out in the order appealed from, that there was omitted from the inventory (possibly through a mistake as to the law) six parcels of real estate which passed from Eliza J. Wingert to her heirs at the time of her death, of which heirs P. Hager Wingert was one; that the valuations returned by the appraisers of the parcels of real estate which were named to them by the administrators were not the true, clear value of the same and could not be accepted by the Court as a basis upon which to calculate the collateral inheritance tax due from the interest of P. Hager Wingert in the parcels of real estate returned in the inventory by them, as such administrators. The appellants contend and urge four grounds for the reversal of the order, and why the proceedings should be dismissed : 1st. Because no petition or proper proceedings has been filed by anyone asking for any relief with reference thereto; ⁵⁴⁰ 2nd.

Because the Court was without jurisdiction in the. premises; 3rd. Because no charge of fraud or mistake has been .alleged by anyone with reference to the appraisement; and 4th. Because the return of the appraisers in the matter of appraisement, in the absence of fraud or/ mistake, establishes the true value of the real estate and is conclusive thereof. It is clear, we think, 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.

By sec. 124 of Art. 81 of the Code of 1912, it is provided, that in all cases where real estate of any kind is subject to the (collateral inheritance) tax the Orphans’ Court of the county in which administration is granted shall appoint the same persons who may have been appointed to value the personal estate to appraise and value all the real estate of the deceased within the State. By section 129 of the same Article, it is provided, the appraisers shall return the inventory when completed to the executor or administrator, whose duty it shall be to return the same to the office of the register of wills, to which the inventory of the personal estate is returnable, and within the same time and under like penalty, and shall make oath that the inventory or inventories is or are a true and perfect inventory or inventories of all the real estate of the deceased, within this State, that has come to his. knowledge, and that, should he thereafter discover