shall be subject to the payment of the tax that the register has any power for the purpose of appraisement and assessment, and the owner of the estate is not bound to submit the question of his liability to pay the tax, either to the register or to the appraiser.1 The appraisement, as a general rule, should be restricted to the taxable estate or interest-that only being liable to the tax-and should not include the general property of the decedent, unless it is all liable to taxation. The duties of the appraiser, under the New York statute, were defined by Surrogate Ransom, in the Matter of Astor: -He should report any property estate or interest therein subject to the tax. It is not his duty to report exemptions, or to fix the value of property not subject to the tax; and where he has not reported all property that is subject thereto, exception may be raised upon the hearing on his report, and where the exception is sustained the report will be sent back for further appraisement; and where the appraiser is in doubt regarding the liabil ity of any property, he should report it as subject to 217. 6 1 Stinger v. Com. 26 Pa. St. 424, 429; Kaas's Est. 45 Leg. Int. But see Matter of Astor, 6 Dem. 410. 2 Matter of Jones, 5 Dem. 30; Matter of Robertson, 5 Id. 92. But see Com. v. Kerchner, 24 W. N. C. 200; Com. v. Boyle, 2 Del. Co. Rep. 335; Chapter III, sec. 10. 3 Supra, 415. 4 L. 1885, ch. 483, sec. 13; L. 1887, sec. 13, Appendix; Matter of Wallace, 18 N. Y. St. Rep. 387; 4 N. Y. Supp. 465. 5 Matter of Vanderbilt, 10 N. Y. Supp. 239; Est. of McGow an, N. Y. Law Jour. July 30, 1890. • Est. of Matthews, N. Y. Law Jour. July 27, 1889; Est. of Jones, Id. July 31, 1890; Est. of Benet, N. Y. Daily Reg. Mch. 4, the tax.1 He has no power to take testimony under oath, although in Pennsylvania it would seem that such power is conferred. All papers relating to matters before the appraiser should be submitted to him. before he makes his report to the surrogate, otherwise the matter will be referred to him to proceed de novo.* The names of all persons entitled to notice should be given in the order appointing the appraiser. To these he must give notice of the proceeding, and he should also state in his report whether any other persons claim any interest in the property appraised, and all parties notified have the right to attend before him, and to be heard on the question of the value of the property and its or their liability to the tax." Upon a subsequent occasion, in defining the duties of the appraiser, Surrogate Ransom said, in a case where it was objected that the appraiser had no power to construe clauses of the will for the purpose of reporting legacies liable to the tax: "It is certainly the appraiser's duty to examine the will to see what its provisions are, and as certainly his duty to call the attention of the surrogate to any facts that appear to him as constituting sufficient reasons for 1 Matter of Hendricks. 1 Con. Surr. Rep. 301; 18 N. Y. St. Rep. 989; Est. of McGowan, supra. 2 Matter of Astor, supra, 410. 3 Kaas's Est. 45 Leg. Int. 217. 4 Est. of Jones, N. Y. Law. Jour. July 31, 1890. * Matter of Astor, supra, 410; Matter of Vanderbilt, 10 N. Y. Supp. 239; Matter of McPherson, 104 N. Y. 306; Coxe's App. 1 Purd. Dig. 10th ed. 218, note. Matter of Astor, supra, 410. But see Stinger v. Com. 26 Pa. St. 424. Est. of McGowan, N. Y. Law Jour. July 30, 1890. His reporting such legacies as subject to the tax. duty is to place all the facts before the surrogate. The report is not final. It is to aid the surrogate to decide what property is liable to the tax, and it is subject to the confirmation, revision or rejection by the surrogate. The facts in this case ascertained by the appraiser, and undisputed, show that the legacies in question passed to a person not exempted. On those facts the surrogate construes the will." By express provision of the statute of New York1 and by that of Pennsylvania, an appraiser may be appointed as often as and whenever occasion may require, but it seems that where an appraiser is appointed, and other interests accrue after his appointment but before his report is filed, he has power to appraise such interests and to report them for taxation. And when property has been omitted, by mistake, fraud or concealment, from the first appraisement, another will be allowed.1 2. Land and personal estate, and where appraised. The fact that these statutes require the property to be appraised in order to fix the amount of the tax does not make the tax imposed upon the appraised value unconstitutional as a property tax, because it is the privilege of taking by will or descent which is taxed, and the appraisement is merely a means of ascertaining the value of such privilege." 1 Appendix, sec. 13. 2 Appendix, sec. 12. 3 Matter of Stewart, 30 N. Y. St. Rep. 738. 4 See post, sec. 5, and Com. v. Freedley, 21 Pa. St. 36; Ma ter of Astor, supra, 416. 5 Wallace v. Myers, 38 Fed. Rep. 184; Matter of McPherson, 104 N. Y. 306. See Chapter II, sec. 3. Under the Pennsylvania statute the appraisement and proceedings thereunder must be had in the county where the letters testamentary and of administration have been issued, but the appraiser may legally appraise land situate in other counties.1 But where there are several tracts of land to be valued they should be valued separately, as occupied by the tenants, and the appraisement is made, as we have seen, in the same manner as land is assessed for general taxation purposes.3 In New York' the appraiser appointed by the surrogate first acquiring jurisdiction may appraise real estate in bulk though it be situate in different counties.5 But it seems that if the property has no salable value nor any actual or potential annual value at the time when the succession accrues, it is not capable of being assessed, and neither possible increase or diminution in the value of the property after the succession accrues is dealt with.' In New York the statute requires the appraiser to appraise the property, both real and personal, at 1 Stinger v. Com. 26 Pa. St. 429, 431. In Maryland the statute (Appendix. sec. 108) provides for the appointment of two appraisers where there is land in different counties. 2 McKean's Est. 29 P. L. J. N. S. 299. 3 McKean's Est. supra; Com. v. Freedley, 21 Pa. St. 36. • Appendix, secs. 15, 17. 5 Matter of Keenan, 1 Con. Surr. 226. Atty.-Gen. v. Sefton, 11 H. L. Cases, 257, 269. See post, sec. 5, and Com. v. Freedley, 21 Pa. St. 36; Stinger v. Com. 26 Id. 425; Est. of Miller, 45 Leg. Int. 175; Est. of Bird, N. Y. Law Jour. July 28, 1890; but see Atty. Gen. v. Dardier, L. R. 11 Q. B. D. 16; Matter of Stewart, 30 N. Y. St. Rep. 3 its "fair market value."-"fair and clear market value." These phrases would seem to be synonymous, and to require all just debts and liabilities due and owing by decedent at the time of his death to be deducted from the market value of the estate.⭑ In Commonwealth's Appeal" the question arose as to the meaning of words requiring the tax to be imposed "on the clear value of such estates." The court said: "The appraiser was of the opinion that because the real estate descended intact to the collateral heirs the tax must be assessed upon the valuation of the real estate without abatement of the debts owing by the decedent at the time of his death. This, however, would exclude any room for the ap plication of clear value,' and is inconsistent with the legislative intent in imposing the tax. This tax at first became a lien due upon the death of the decedent. His debts were then a lien against his real estate, and the law authorized the land to be sold, if 1 Appendix, sec. 13. 2 Ibid, sec. 2. 3 Matter of Astor, 6 Dem. 411; Matter of Leavitt, 4 N. Y. Supp. 179; Est. of Bird, N. Y. Law Jour. July 31, 1890. See Com's. App. (Cooper's Est.), 127 Pa. St. 440; Com. v. Freedley, 21 Id. 33. In Connecticut it is "the actual value" or "actual market value." L. Conn. Appendix, secs. 2, 12. In Maryland it is the "clear value," "appraised value," "true value;" L. Md. Appendix, secs. 102, 104, 112. 4 Orcutt's App. 97 Pa. St. 175; Com's. App. (Avery's Est.), 34 Id. 204; Strode v. Com. 52 Id. 181; Rubincam's Est. 38 Leg. Int. 261; Kaas's Est. 45 Leg. Int. 217; Cullen's Est. 26 W. N. C. 216; Com. v. Coleman, 52 Pa. St. 473; Com's. App. (Cooper's Est), 127 Id. 435; 17 Atl. 1095; Matter of Enston, 113 N. Y. See Mellon's App. 114 Pa. St. 569. 181. |