sense to represent the party appointing him and within reasonable limits to see to it that no legitimate consideration favorable to the party so appointing him is overlooked by the other appraiser.

American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Landau, 62 N. J. Eq. 73, 49 Atl. Rep. 738; Schmitt v. Boston Ins. Co., 82 App. Div. 234, 81 N. Y. Supp. 767. Compare with Rule 42. .And see Rules 50, 51, and 56.

RULE 54.

Effect of an Appraisal Required in a Standard Form of Policy.

When a State prescribes in a standard form of fire insurance contract and requires an appraisal, such appraisers constitute a quasi court, subject to the principles governing common-law arbitration. Such a board should sit in a body and receive evidence offered by the respective parties, submitting the same if required to usual tests of cross-examination. While the individual members are prohibited from privately collecting evidence from different sources, a reasonable latitude is allowed them in the examination of the premises and remnants of goods for the purpose of better understanding and weighing the evidence on the principal question before them, viz., what is the just damage to the property involved? But while a certain liberality is permissible in acquainting themselves with the circumstances surrounding the fire without the medium of witnesses, such a board is not selected for the purpose of seeking evidence secretly and determining the amount of loss by reason of such personal knowledge. The appraisers must constitute a body of disinterested men, whose business it is to proceed in a

judicial and impartial manner to ascertain the facts in controversy.

Christianson v. Norwich Union Ins. Soc., 84 Minn. 526, 88 N. W. Rep. 16; Produce Refrigerator Co. v. Norwich Union Ins. Assoc., Minn. 97 N. W. Rep. 875; Redner v. New York Ins. Co., Minn. 99 N. W. Rep. 886.

RULE 55.

Appraisers not Limited to Kind or Quality of Evidence

Experts.

Appraisers are not limited to the kind or quality of evidence which may be considered by them; they may call in an expert on the special branch or point involved and give such weight to his opinion as they may see fit, if adopted as their own best judgment in good faith. Bangor Bank v. Niagara Ins. Co., 85 Me. 68, 26 Atl. Rep. 991.

RULE 56.

Distinction as to Evidence When Property Wholly Destroyed or Damaged.

While appraisers may not always be required to take evidence as to the damage to property visible and open to their inspection, as to property wholly destroyed or not so visible and open to inspection, appraisers necessarily act upon information or evidence;1 and both the insured and the company should receive notice of time and place of hearing.2

1. Kaiser v. Hamburg-Bremen Ins. Co., 59 App. Div. 525, 69 N. Y. Supp. 344, affd., 172 N. Y. 663, without opinion; Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Payne, 57 Kans. 291, 46 Pac. Rep. 315, 26 Ins. L. J. 46; Citizens' Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 48 Ill. App. 593; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Romeis, 15 Ohio C. C. 697; Stemmer v. Scottish Ins. Co., 33 Oreg. 65, 53 Pac. Rep. 498, 27 Ins. L. J. 972. And see Bangor Savings Bank v. Niagara Ins. Co., 85 Me. 68, 26 Atl. Rep. 991. And see Rule 50.

2. Continental Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 125 Fed. C. C. A. 395; Stout v. Phoenix Assur. Co., 56 Atl. Rep. 691.

Rep. 589, 60 N. J. Eq.

RULE 57.

Appraisers' Decision as to Application of the Description in Policy to Property in Question Conclusive.

Appraisers are presumed to have used their best judgment in ascertaining what particular articles or items of property were embraced within the words of general description as used in the policy, and their decision of the question is final and conclusive.

Chandos v. American Ins. Co., 84 Wis. 184, 22 Ins. L. J. 425, 54 N. W. Rep. 390.

RULE 58.

Effect of Improper Proposal by the Company's Appraiser.

If the company's appraiser makes an improper proposal to the assured's appraiser the insured is relieved of any obligation to continue the appraisal, and where new appraisers are not appointed the appraisal clause is no defense to action on the policy.

Davis v. Guardian Assur. Co., 87 Hun, 414, 34 N. Y. Supp. 332, affd., 155 N. Y. 682, on opinion below.

RULE 59.

Appraisers Must Follow Agreed Submitted Schedule. Appraisers have no authority to reject items in a mutually submitted schedule as not covered by the policy; the award, to be binding, must be pursuant to the agreement of appraisal on submission.2

1. Adams v. New York Bowery Ins. Co., 85 Iowa, 6, 51 N. W. Rep. 1149.

2. Continental Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 125 Fed. Rep. 589, 60 C. C. A. 395; Rutter and Hendrix v. Hanover Ins. Co., Ala. 35 So. Rep. 33.

RULE 60.

Proceedings not Invalid for Want of Oath by Appraisers. Proceeding on appraisal and an award are not rendered void for want of an oath by the appraisers.

Zallee v. Laclede Ins. Co., 44 Mo. 530; Stout v. Phoenix Assur. Co., N. J. Eq. 56 Atl. Rep. 691.

RULE 61.

Appraisers Must Follow Limitations in Policy as to Amount of Loss or Damage.

Appraisers in estimating or ascertaining the loss are, unless otherwise stipulated by agreement, bound to follow the terms and limitations of the policy, that the loss or damage should in no event exceed what it would then cost to repair or replace; if the umpire or appraiser ignore or refuse to act upon such limitation of their power and authority, it renders the award void; so they are bound to ascertain and determine sound value.2

1. Providence-Washington Ins. Co. v. Board of Education, 49 W. Va. 360, 38 S. E. Rep. 679.

2. Continental Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 125 Fed. Rep. 589, 60 C. C. A. 395.

RULE 62.

Allowance Must be Made for Depreciation. Appraisers should make proper deduction for depreciation by use, age, condition, location, or otherwise according to the circumstances of the particular case. Michels v. Western Underwriters' Assoc., 129 Mich. 417, 89 N. W. Rep. 56.

RULE 63.

Umpire May be Selected after Commencement of Appraisal. An umpire may be chosen after commencement of appraisal without invalidating the award.

Caledonian Ins. Co. v. Traub, 83 Md. 524, 35 Atl. Rep. 13, 25 Ins. L. J. 791; Chandos v. American Ins. Co., 84 Wis. 184,

54 N. W. Rep. 390, 22 Ins. L. J. 425; London & Lancashire Ins. Co. v. Storrs, 71 Fed. Rep. 120, 17 C. C. A. 645, 36 U. S. App. 327, 25 Ins. L. J. 283. See Rules 10 and 67.

RULE 64.

When Umpire Has Authority to Act.

The umpire has no authority to act until the appraisers have performed their duty and until they finally differ;' but if, after reaching different estimates of the loss, one of the appraisers in bad faith endeavors to prevent further conference or to postpone it for some ulterior purpose, then the other appraiser acting in good faith has a right to regard their differences as a final disagreement, and thereupon to call in the umpire;2 but notice and opportunity of being heard should be given.3

1. Broadway Ins. Co. v. Doying, 55 N. J. L. 569, 27 Atl. Rep. 927, 23 Ins. L. J. 394; Caledonian Ins. Co. v. Traub, 83 Md. 524, 35 Atl. Rep. 13, 25 Ins. L. J. 791, 86 Md. 86, 37 Atl. Rep. 782, 27 Ins. L. J. 493; British-American Ins. Co. v. Darragh, 128 Fed. Rep. 890, 63 C. C. A. 426.

2. Broadway Ins. Co. v. Doying, supra.

3. Schmitt v. Boston Ins. Co., 82 App. Div. 234, 81 N. Y. Supp. 767.

RULE 65.

Duty of the Umpire.

It is the duty of the umpire to examine and consider the appraisement of each appraiser before arriving at his own determination; where he acts in a hasty and perfunctory manner and listens only to one appraiser and neglects or refuses to hear the other, it is sufficient misconduct to authorize a court of equity to set aside the award. An award is not rendered void because an umpire, acting in good faith, adopts as his own the