Case Name: Humbard vs. Smith and Morelock
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1837-06
Citations: 10 Yer. 249
Docket Number: 
Parties: Humbard vs. Smith and Morelock.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
Humbard vs. Smith and Morelock.
Knoxville,
June, 1837.
The creditor of a deceased debtor, resident at the time of his death, and at the time his administrators qualified, without the limits of the state, but who removed within two years after the grant of administration, into this state, and before suit brought, is hot barred by the act of 1789, c 23, until three years from the qualification of the administrator;
6y the act of 1789, c 23, creditors of deceased persons residing without the limits of the state, are allowed three, and creditors within the state two years, from the qualification of the personal representatives, to commence their suits. In such cases the residence of the creditor at the time of administration granted, and not at the time of the suit brought, determines the question whether his debt shall be barred in two, or three years.
R. J. McKinney, for plaintiff in error.
J. Jl. McKinney, for defendant in error

Opinion:
Reese, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question in this case is, whether under the provisions of the fourth section of the act 1789, c 23, the creditor of a deceased debtor, resident at the time of the death, and of administration granted, without the limits of the state, but who, within two years from the time of granting administration, may have his domicil in the state, shall be entitled three years from the qualification of the executor or ad~ mentioned in the act, or to two years only? Ana we are of opinion that the residence of the creditor at the' time of administration granted, and not at the time of the suit brought, determines the question whether he shall be barred by two, or by three years. If at the time of administration granted, the creditor resided within the limits of the state, and before the expiration of two years, removed beyond its limits, we think such removal shall not have the effect to extend the time of the bar one whole year. To say so, would contravene the policy of the statute. So on the other hand, if at the time of administration granted, the creditor reside beyond the limits of the state, and within two years remove his residence within, such removal shall not deprive him of the additional year within which to bring his suit. The difference of one year between resident and non-resident creditors, was probably produced by the belief that the non-resident creditor being usually at a greater distance, and in a different community might not so readily ascertain the facts of death and of administration.. To deprive him of this advantage of longer time for inquiry and information, because, before the expiration of two years he had settled within the state, would neither be just to him nor consistent with the object for which the longer time was probably awarded to him by the statute. Let the judgment be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.