The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1866-11-08
DECISIONS E THE HIGH COURT
ERRoRs AND APPEALS.

ApML TERM lso0.

| -'ff"f - - ~ NfHAs
Error 70 ~ C5can cont u Hoime
County
; cIfTEF JUsTICf ELLKTf DELIVERED THE
OpKicN or THE coUHT
The plaintiffin error declared on an open
account. Tholefendants pleaded that the
a claims sued % was not Registered within
two years afer publication Of notice u
creditors The plaintiff replied that the
defendants he'd notice Ofthe existence Of the
said claim wthn two years after said publ
cation. The defendants demurred 10 this
replication, and the Court sustained the do
mwrer, and gave judgment for the defend
ants. The piopriety Of this decision Is tho
question for orr consideration.
Tho statute under which the question
arises is as follows: "All claims against the
estate Of deceased person. whether due OF
not, shall be registered in the Court in
which the Letters testamentOry or OF admin.
istration were granted, within two years af-
ter the first publication fn0tice to creditors
10 present their claims, as required by the
9th section Of this act, or the claim shall be
barred, and no suit or action shall be sus-
tanned thereon, either at law on in equity.
Rev. Code "a ant ~ Aud the question is
whether actual notice 10 the administrator
| Oi an unlrglkicfth clailIt Will take the case
ont Of tho operation Of the statute.
II seems clear that effect cannot be given
10 the article quoted according to tho fun
aud literal import Of It's terms Tor if n suit
should DO brought before the expiration Of
the two years allowed for the registration of
claims il could not be pretended that such
suit could afterwards be barred by reason Of
n failure 10 register the claim within the
time limited, but the suit would proceed to
trial and Judgment as in other eases. So, ii
suit should be brought and judgment re-
e0rVer agalnsi.the administrator within the
two years. the want of subsequent rcgistra-
tion could hardly he interposed as an obiec-
ton to the regularity Of an execution If sued
upon such Judgment,
Again, tie statute does not create limi
tatiOn operating in all eases in favor of es-
tates of decedents, from definite time fixed
by the law, or ascertained by reference TO
the records Of the Probate Court On the
contrary the limitation does not begin to
run except on the previous performance ola
duty enioincd upon the administrators the
discharge of which is matter in pans, aud
Of which the records of the Court do not
necessarily furnish any information 1t
runs only from tho first publication of no
ticc, which the administrator is required TO
publish in some newspaper, within two
W
Code 1i3, art. n, The object of this latter
rcquireneLt,as declared expressly on the face
Of the act, is, that the true condition of
the estate may be speedily known so
that the Administering may proceed TO pay
the debts NJ speedily as may be, out Of the
assets which may come to his hands, If the
estate be solvent The notice to be thus
given, requires the creditors to have their
claims registered within tho time prescribed
by law on they viii be barred Article II |
of the same act provides for the keeping of |
the book, and directs the manner of regis
teriug claims, and Article - limits the time |
within which such claims must he registered |
IL Is thus seen that the object of all these |
proceedings is TO furnish the Administrator |
with early information of the true condition |
of the estate, and to enable him to proceed |
promptly and speedily in its settlement |
The registration comes in place of the pres |
entaton TO the Administrator required under |
former laws, and greatly simpliiies and |
facilitates the proceedings, The Office of
the Clerk of Il Court is now made the place,
where, ut the same time they probate It, cir
claims, the creditors present them to the
Administrator, by causing them TO be entered
upon the register, aud where the Admins
TRAITOR can at any moment ascertain the
character and amount of the debts
exhibited against the estate.
These provisions are the result of n revis-
ion of the former laws on the same subject
and "A reference to the old statutes, in con
trast with the new, will not only show the
wisdom of the latter, but in connection with
The judicial Interpretation put upon the
former, will greatly aid in conducting MS to
! proper conclusion in relation to the matter
lnder consideration. 4
The act Of 1921, Hutch Code, GIL, Sec. ll5,
contained the following provision. GAN
claims against the estate of deceased persons
shall be presented to the Executor, Admin
strator, or Collector, within eighteen
months after the publication of notice for
Thar purpose by such Executor, Admnistra-
Tor, or Collector, and not after aud all
,laims not presented within the time afore-
laid, shall be forever barred, and the estate
If the tcstator or intcstate, shall be thereaE
Ter discharged from the payment of such
claim or claims and the Executor, Admins
.rator, or Collector may give this act in evil
lence, without pleading the same specially,
in bar of any suit of action, either in law or
equity brought to recover the amount Of any
,laim or claims of which notice had not been
given by the creditor or creditors, according
10 the foregoing provisions Three years
were allowed To nonresident creditors to
present their claims aud by an act passed
IN lSl6, Hutch. Code 6Sl) both these pori-
DDS of limitation were repealed, and two
rears adopted IA both cases. The latter act
,lso contained the provision that ito auth.
,rize collection Of any clam, and the pay
nent thereof by the Executor or Admins
traitor, the same shall first be prOhated hy
The court IN which the estate is administered
shall he recorded therein, aud shall be certi-
led by the Judge thereof under his hand as
and allowed"
lt appears that with the exception of the
substitution Of registration for presentation,
The present law contains ia substance the
same provisions that were in force before the
Revised Code was adopted Presentation
was then required for the same reason that
registration is now made necessary, and the
s.tne consequences resulted from a failure to
make presentation in the proper time and
that now follow an omission Go re-
ulster the claim in the mode provided.
The question Of the snfliciency Of the pre-
cntment Of claims under the old law, was
q avoid the limitation, has been frequently
'onsidered by this court. and il has been uni
ornlly held that It was only necessary 60 shew
y legal evidence that the administrator had
,nowledge Of the existence Of the claim, no
natter nom what source that knowledge was
erived. In the case Of Helm vs.. Smith, 2.
/, 4 NJ. Az the court held that the object of
he presentation Vas nothing more than 10
aform the administrator Of the claims
gainst The estate, and that IL was Therefore I
legitimate to show a notice of snch claims to
be administrator by any legal evidenee that
Tould establish the fact of his knowledge Of
Is existence. TO the satisfaction Of a jury, I