The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-11-17
STATUE
A BAR
TO CLAIM
Court Renders An Important
Decision In Case Of Mary
B. Thompson Against Hoxey.

Another important opinion In regard
10 suits against the estates of decedents
was handed down by the appellate divi-
sion OF the supreme court today. The
case In which the opinion was given
was that OF Mary b. Thompson against
William Hoxsey, administrator de bonis
non on the estate OF VIM Court Pendle-
ton, for an account alleged TO have been
due Nov 2s. 1896, the writ having been
issued Feb. 10. 1900.
Defendant pleaded the general issue.
the statute OF limitations. and that VIM
Court Pendleton died Nov. 2s 1896; that
Samuel III. Cross was appointed admins
traitor OF the estate Jan. g. 1896. and first
published notice of his qualification Jan.
Is, 1896; that said Cross died July 2. 1898;
that the defendant was appointed ad-
ministrator OF the goods not administered
upon on Aug. l. 1898, publishing his first
notice Aug. 49, 1885, and that the plaintiff
did not bring her action against said
Cross or this defendant within the years
after the first publication OF notice of his
qualification administrator and setting
up the bar OF Pub. Stat. chap. 1s9, sec
): that the Gen. Laws, chap. 21S, sec. 3.
was In force at the time which statute
is a bar after two years to the prose-
cution or such claim. and that the
plaintiff never presented her claim to said
Cross nor 10 the defendant. nor filed the
same In the court of probate within six
months from the date of notice of said
administrators. as required by law
The plaintiff demurred to the third and
fourth pleas. In support of the demurrer
to the third plea the plaintiff claims that
fhnnUh ah hox
cluded from bringing her action had Cross
nveu. yet the fact that he did not, and
that an administrator de bonis had been
appointed. entities her claim to this ad-
ministrator and thus 10 come under a
new period OF Limitation.
Chief Justice Stiness writes the opin-
lon of the court and he says the uniform
decision ofthis- courts have been that the
special limitation In favor OF executor and
administrators was designed to promote
the speedy settlement of estates and that
II Is a complete bar. These decisions are
held to all recognize the notice of the
original grant of letters testamentary or
OF administration as the date from
which the statute runs
In Mowry VS.. Harris the first admins
traitor was removed and a new one was
appointed on appeal but the court held
that the original grant OF administration
was the controlling date His honor furth-
er states that the present suit was NOT
begun until l3 months after the expira-
ton of three years from the date of the
frst-hetiee.
The plaintiff argues, however that az
the special limitation had not expired
when Cross died there Ia no continuity
OF time limit In favor OF successive ad-
ministrators. To this It Is sufficient to re-
ply that there In also no provision Tor it's
suspension and the settled rule IL that
when the statute begins to run II con-
tinues without interruption unless there
Is legislative provision TO the contrary
But the terms OF the statute are ex-
plicit. The bar OF the statute then was
after three years from the time OF such
proof OF grant except for certain claims
OF which this is not one. The time of the
proof OF a will does not change and the
appointment OF an administrator de bonis
non Is not n grant of administration ue
novo. The statute was TO begin to run
upon notice after the proof of grant II
was not intended TO open and to run
again upon the notice OF a second admin
istrator with possibly third. The intent
is made very plain in Gen. Laws chap.
21s, sec. 3. by the words. from the date
OF the first publication of the notice of
qualification of the first executor or ad-
ministrator.
tor or administrator
Demurrers of the defendant In the SIM
liar case OF Mary II. Thompson VS.. Will
liam Hoxsey, administrator are over
ruled