The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1866-11-10


y'afH were 8InKfd la Han foaHlfHl
.iefliHs N tfraHi ihelf eitims ani
w Hn sst ass1 ia isiG, liin,h
l'nle fsi lnfh ihess l#fsaia W llm
iiaii1n effu feIsalei snd lsu feafs
Hdutiel u iHll msH ne Iaiief
ati flap contained lhe provision ihai
" authorize collection ~ tny CHIN.
and uis paymsm iheWuf w Me 81
erutnf ~ admlniaimtof. I'll mmt
shall hfsl hc pfolaled hy lhf cuuft In
which lhe estate is administered shali
be recorded ihefein anl shall l,e opf
hhal by The Judge thereof dhdef
bis hand "a examined and allowed
" appnfs that with The ercrpiion
Of The substitution " registration fof
prrsfhintion The present lnw contains
10 Substance lhe same provisions That
were 10 force before ihe Revised Code
wns adopted Presentation wns then
fequlfcd for the same fcnson that reg
isluiion u naw made necessary. and
The same consequences fcmltod from
% failure 10 make presentation In the
proper time and mnnncf, that now
follow M omission to register the
claim In the mode provided.
The question Of the su1icicncy of
the prcscntmcnt of claims under the
old law, was to avoid the limitation,
has been frequently considered by
this court, and II has been uniformly
held that il was only necessary to
show by legal evidence that the adj
ninistrator had knowledge of the cx-
,stcncc Of the claim, no matter from
what source that knowledge was de-
rived. In the ease of Helm VI.
Smith, 2, $. d NJ. iO3, the court held
that the object of the presentation
was nothing more than to inform the
o lministration of the claims against
the estate and that Il was therefore
legitimate to show notice of such
claims to the administrator by any
legal evidence that would establish
The fact Of his knowledge of its exis-
nee, to the satisfaction of a jury, be-
cause the design of the statute would
be thereby accomplished; and that
notice of the protest of a promissory
note made out by notary public in
the usual form, and deposited by him
IN the postotiice, addressed to the en-
d rser at his usual place Of residence,
the endorser having died before the
maturity Of the note, was a good pre-
.cntation of the note to the executor
If the endorser, the executor being in
the habit Of receiving his own letters
at the same postoilice. Proceeding
expressly upon the same ground that
the object of presentation was to let
the administrator know the condition
of the estate. IL was held in the
case of Miller vs.. Helm, in the same
volume, page 6S7, that no presenta-
tion was necessary in eases where the
acit lien existed, given by statute
to secure the purchase money of prop
crty sold by executors and admins
traitors, such liens being considered
OF record, and therefore always in Il
state of presentation. In Gordon VS..
Gibbs. 3, S. d NJ. Alb, it was dcci-
ded that an administration bond on
which the deceased was a surety, was
always in a state of presentation, be-
ing matter of record and notice to
every one, and that no presentation
to the administrator of such surety,
was necessary 10 be made of a claim
arising upon the said bond in conse-
quence Of breach of the condition
by the principal. In Miller vs..
Trustees Of Jefferson College, 5, $.
d NJ. 65l, il was ruled that a debt
secured by mortgage need not be pre-
scnted, the mortgage being of record
aud therefore constructive notice Ia
, the administrator. In this case il
was also said that the statute
was to be regarded only as a
statute of limitations; and as a sub
scquent promise will take a case oui
of the statute of limitations, 50 viii
a knowledge of the debt BY an cxecu-
tor or administrator, take il out oi
this statute without a presentation
/, In Ellis VS.. Carlisle, 8, 5. d NJ. 552
il was again repeated that knowledge
or notice of the claim is equivalent tC
presentation, and that any evidence
, tending to show such knowledge wa.
, admissible, although there was NJ
actual presentation. And this rul,
: is recognized as the settled doctrine o
this Court in Brown VS.. Hill, u
f Miss. a., and in Branch Bank Of Ala
bama vs.. Rhew, 81, Miss. 40.
? II thus appears that the construc
ton Of the act Of 1921 and 1916, n
= far as they relate to the subject il
: hand, has been settled by long traiI
r Of well considered decisions, unusua
2 in their number, the variety of thei
E facts. and their consistency with eacl
other. Ascertaining first the objec
{ which the Legislature had in view
e these adjudications give effect to ,h
e law, not perhaps according TO H. lii
7, eral import, but according to It's oh
{ vions spirit aud intent. They e.
e tablish rules for the Interpretation q
e similar statutes, which ought 10 b
: constantly rc~orted to whenever th
: circumstances make them applicable
The substitute for these provision
contained in the Revised Code, fur
;, nishes far better mode Of attainin
: the end proposed by the Lcgislatur
i Securing, as il does, the record ev
u dence ofthe prcsentment Of all claim
i against estates, and thereby avoidin
u all the difficulty and expense involve
. in establishing the facts by paro
!. evidence. and every consideration