The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-07-08
During Which Admins
traitors May be Sued.
Court Defines When Old Three
Years Limit Applies.
II Was In the Case'0f James Gum
Against Daniel F. Kelleher.

The decision of the Appellate Cour. in
the case of James Gum vs. Daniel K.
kelleher, administrator handed down to-
day is an Important one, as it deals very
fully with the law In regard to the time
in which suits against administrators may
be brought. The opinion of the court Is
as follows: "Matteson L, q. j. This is
an action OF assumpsit brought against
the defendant as administrators of the
estate in this state of Peter NJ. Honoyman
late OF Chiffon, Wis, deceased. The writ
is dated May 25, 1896. The defendant
pleaded the general ISSUE and by leave OF
court special plea setting up the bar OF
General Laws. X. /. cap. 2lS. section 9,
General Laws, X /. took effect Feb. ],
1896. and cap. 2lS, sec. ., provides: mo
executor or administrator shall be held TO
answer to the suit of q creditor of the de-
ceased, excepting suit on his bond or as Is
otherwise provided :in this or the preced-
Ing title; unless such suit Is commenced
within two years from the date of the first
publication OF the notice OF the qualifica-
tion Of the first executor or administrators.
1.-The plea alleges that more than two
years defore the commencement of this
suit, TO wit: On Feb. q, 1894, at Provi-
dence the defendant was uuly appointed
administrator of the goods, cbattels and
estate OF the deceased in Rhode Island.
and then and there accepted the trust
that afterward within 10 days from his
acceptance OF tho trust, on, TO wit, Feb. y,
10 and IL, 1894, he gave notice Of his
acceptance by law required; that the
plaintiffs did not begin their suit against
him until more than two years from the
date Of the first publication OF the notice
of his qualification.
$40 this plea the defendants have de-
INJURED.
Pub. Stat, II. l. cap ls9, Sec s, Dap.
200, Sec. 9, in force at the date of the
appointment Of the defendant as admins
traitor, provided that no action should be
brought against any administrator within
one year after the grant of administrator
nor after three years from such grant ox-
cept for certain causes not necessary to be
adverted TO, provided notice of this ap-
pointment should have been given accord
ing TO law, such periods TO be reckoned
from the time OF the giving OF the notice,
and, therefore, the defendant was not ap-
pointed administrator, as recited in the
plea until Feb. g, 1894, the limitation OF
the statutes then in force did not begin to
run against the plaintiffs cause of action
until his qualification as administrator
and the publication of the notice of his
appointment on Feb. 9 1894 Conse-
quently the plaintiffs cause Of action
would not have been barred by the
statutes then in force. till Feb. q 1897,
had they continued in force or more than
q year after the general laws took effect
''In support of the plea IL Is contended
that this limitation was cut down by
General Laws, X. l., cap 2lS, sec. 9,
from three years to two years, and that
il expired therefore on February O. 1896,
more than three months prior to the
bringing of this suit.
1--WE do not think this contention is
correct. Gen. Laws, II. l., cap 29S, Sec
TO- enacts that Whenever n lin itation or
period of time prescribed in any of the
acts repealed by this chapter for the ac-
quiring Of any right or the barring of
any remedy or for any other purpose shall
have begun TO run, and the same or any
similar Limitation shall continue to run
and sbal, have the like effect as If the
whole period had begun and ended under
the operations of the General Laws.
Pub. Stat, L. l., cap. ls9. sec. s, cap.
., sec. 9, were repealed by Gen. Laws,
cap. POS. Hence the Limitation OF three
years prescribed 10y them is expressly con-
tinued by cap. 29S. with the like effect
as II the three years had begun and ended
under the operation of the General Laws.
l. O., with the like effect as If the General
Laws instead of the Public Statutes had
been in force when the limitation began,
and as If it had continued to run under
the General Laws to its termination. We
think, therefore, that the plea constitutes
no defense to this action. Demurrer sus
tanned, plea overruled and case remitted
TO the Common Pleas for further proceed
inUs ~