The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1903-07-25
CANNOT
COLLECT
CLAIM
Appe||ats Court Holds Statute
Of Limitations Bars Mary B.
Thompson From Recovering,

Defendants demurrer to plaintiffs re-
pl,cation In the case Of Mary b. Thomp- !.
son VS.. william Hoxsey. administrators dc
bonis non. has been sustained by the ap-
pellate division OF the supreme court The
pleadings in this case up to the stage at
which IL came before the court recently !,
were passed upon by Chief Justice Stiness
In an opinion reported on 24th r. 4sa.
The court there sustained the defend
ants third plea, which was pased upon
the special statute of limitations ions on nnicS icS
plea alleged that the piaintin qid not
bring her action against Samuel "A. Crose. :
the original administrator. or against VII
liam Hoxsey, the administrator de bonis >
non, within three years after the nrst
publication of the notice OF Cross quail
fication as administrator.
The PLAINTIFF demurrer TO the defeno-
ants fourth plea was sustained ~ tne
court in its opinion, This plea dinered
from % the nd IL shaa Tse ffs eS eeus a'
that inssmuch as the action was com
menced Feb Is, 1900. which was more
orgina tnaa shrse amyaistrator year ssmue H. Cross.
qualified as such, the action could not pc
maintained, as the statutes OF linv.Shuon
referred 20 were a complete par 10 the
I'he case came before the court last on
three points made In her plea which
points were first thst she presented her
claim 10 said Cross as administrator
within the time limited by law; second.
that said Cross allowed her said claim
and promised to pay the same: third, that
after the decease of said Cross ana
within the time limited by law she pre-
sented her claim 10 the administrators DC
bonis non: fourth, that said administra-
tor de bonis non. never nled in the pro-
bate court any statement allowing or
denying the validity OF PLAINTIFFS claim
"
ed
The defendant demurred TO this repli-
cation on the ground that II Is insuhi-
| Client. invalid and Ineffective
Judge Tillnghast who wrote the opfn-
ion OF the court uses this language:
1--WE come now to consider the only
| really new point I'm the case, namely. the
allegation in said replication that Mr..
| Cross the first administrator allowed the
! plaintiffs claim and promised to pay the
same out OF the estate.
This raises the question whether an ex-
| ecutor or administrator can waive the
special statute OF limitations as TO bind
| the estate. We think II Is clear that this
| question must be answered In the mega
| tive The authorities. so far as we are
| aware are entirely uniform In holding
| that the special statute OF limitations
| otherwise termed the statute or non claim
which limits the time within which an
action can be brought against him In his
| official capacity. is imperative and cannot
be waived. The purpose Of these special
statutes OF limitations is 10 secure
speedy settlement OF the estates OF de-
ceased persons, and they exist independ-
ent OF and collateral TO the general sta
| tute Of limitation"
Judge Tfllnghast says the effect OF this
| special statute OF Limitation Is when IL
| has run IL TO absolutely extinguish the
| right or the claimant, instead OF Affect
! ing the remedy merely as may be the
| case under the general statute OF limita-
I tons and nothing remains upon which to
| base an action like the one before the
court.