to run during his life, it will not begin to run against his estate until an executor or administrator has been duly appointed and qualified, upon the principle that the statute cannot begin to run until there is a person in existence capable of suing or being sued upon the claim.1 8 Thus, where property was acquired after the death of the intestate, it has been held that the statute does not commence to run against an action of trover therefor until administration is granted; 2 and where the statute gives a remedy to the executor or administrator of an estate of a person killed by the negligence of another, and also provides that the action shall be brought within one year from the time when the right of action accrued, the action is not treated as having accrued until the appointment of an administrator; but the rule would be otherwise if the statute provided that an action therefor should be brought within one year from the time of such intestate's death, because in that case the statute attaches immediately, and the bar becomes complete at the end of a full year from that time. There is also another element that enters into cases of this character, and that is, that as the statute gives the right to sue, and no such right exists independent thereof, it only exists in the manner and for the period provided by the statute; and, strictly speaking, the provision as to the period within which action must be brought is a condition imposed upon the right, rather than a limitation, and unless the statute is complied with, the right is defeated, and can never be revived either by an acknowledgment or promise. In a Connecticut case, before cited, an action was brought against the defendant to recover under a statute of the State, for injuries inflicted by the negligence of the defendant, upon the plaintiff's intestate, of which he subsequently died. The statute provided a remedy in such cases, but limited the right of action to one year after the cause of action arose. The injury was inflicted Dec. 29, 1864, and death ensued a few days afterwards. The action was not commenced until June 14, 1866, considerably more than one year after the plaintiff's intestate died, but within one year after letters of administration were taken out upon his estate. The defendants insisted that, as the action was not ministrator de bonis non on the obligee's estate was appointed in October, 1849, and the claim on the bond was filed the same month. It was held that as the Maryland statute of limitations (running twelve years on bonds) had begun to run in the lifetime of the obligee, none of the facts above stated stopped its operation. If a suit is abated and not revived, it takes no time out of the statute. Boatwright v. Boatwright, L. R. 17 Eq. 71; Rhodes v. Smithurst, 4 M. & W. 42. 1 Joliffe v. Pitt, 2 Vern. 694; Burdick v. Garrick, L. R. 5 Ch. 233; Webster v. Webster, 10 Ves. 93. The statute is suspended until the appointment of an administrator. Briggs v. Thomas, 32 Vt. 176; Toby v. Allen, 3 Kan. 399; Etter v. Finn, 12 Ark. 632; McKenzie v. Hill, 51 Mo. 303; Hall v. Deatly, ante. 2 Johnson v. Wren, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 172; Clark v. Hardman, 2 Leigh (Va.), 347; Bucklin v. Ford, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 393. 3 Andrews v. Hartford, &c. R. R. Co., 34 Conn. 57; Sherman v. Western, &c. Co., 24 Iowa, 515. 4 Andrews v. Hartford, &c. R. R. Co., ante. CA § 194.] EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 401 commenced within one year after the intestate's death, the remedy was lost. The court held that the remedy was not lost, because the cause of action did not arise until an executor or administrator was appointed upon the estate. “The cause of action," said BUTLER, J., “would have been perfect on the happening of the death, and would have been barred at the end of one year from the happening of the event, if an ordi, nary case, or there had been an executor. But it is a rule of law, recog, nized by the court,' that a cause of action accruing to an administrator after the death of the intestate is not complete, and does not arise and exist so that the statute can begin to run upon it until an adminis trator is appointed who can bring suit. And the legislature seem to have had that rule in view when they enacted the statute; for they did not say that the action should be barred unless commenced within one year from the death, or the happening of the events for which it is given, but unless commenced within one year after the cause of action shall have arisen.' Inasmuch, then, as under a well-settled rule no cause of action can arise and exist in favor of an administrator until he comes into existence as such, and this suit was brought within one year after the plaintiff received his appointment, it was not barred.” 2 The rule is well settled, that where a cause of action does not accrue until after the death of the creditor or claimant the statute does not begin to run until administration is granted; but if it accrues before his death, the running of the statute is not suspended, unless express provision to that effect is made in the statute. In the case of an infant, or indeed any person under a statutory disability at the time of their death, the statute does not begin to run until administration is granted." The circumstance that an executor is named in the will does not change the rule, as the statute does not attach until he has been duly qualified to act as such by proof of the will; and it seems that when an execu 1 Hobart v. Conn. Turnpike Co., ante. 2 In Sherman v. Western, &c. R. R. Co., ante, the same rule was adopted in a case arising under a similar statute, where the plaintiff's intestate was thrown from a boat and capsized by reason of the negligence of the employés of the defendant stage company, whose passenger she was, and after struggling ten minutes, more or less, to save her life, was drowned. See also Wood v. Ford, 29 Miss. 57, where a similar rule was applied. 8 Hobart v. Conn. Turnpike Co., ante; Beauchamp v. Mudd, 2 Bibb (Ky.), 587; Abbott v. McElroy, 18 Miss. 100; Fishwick v. Sewell, 4 H. & J. (Md.) 393. 4 Nicks v. Martindale, Harp. (S. C.) 135; Burnett v. Bryan, 6 N. J. L. 377; Davis v. Garr, 6 N. Y. 124; Goodhue v. Barnwell, Rice (S. C.) Ch. 198. 8 Goodhue v. Barnwell, ante. • Forrest v. Douglas, 4 Bing. 704; Gar. land v. Milling, 6 Ga. 310; Ellison v. Allen, 8 Fla. 206; Hobart v. Conn. Turnpike Co., 15 Conn. 145. The view adopted in the text, that where a statute gives a right, and provides a period within which it shall be enforced, the clause relating to the time of its enforcement is to be treated rather as a condition than a limitation, is fully sustained in Pittsburgh, Cin., & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Hine, 25 Ohio St. 629. This view is forcibly illustrated in a late case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Boyd v. Clark, reported in 24 Albany Law Journal, p. 508. In that case an action was brought in Michigan by an administrator against the owners of a steamboat for the death of plaintiff's intestate, caused by the tor accepts the trust under the will the statute begins to run from the explosion of the boiler of such steamboat, which was claimed to be due to the negligence of defendants. The explosion took place within the limits of the province of Ontario. By a statute of that province an action for damages may be brought in the name of the administrator or executor of a person whose death was caused by the negligence of another against such other, if there would have been liability at common law if death had not occurred. The statute also provides that "every such action shall be commenced within twelve months after the death of the deceased person." The declaration was demurred to on the ground that the action was not brought within twelve months after the death occurred and the demurrer was sustained. BROWN, D. J., saying: "It is a wellestablished principle of law that where a right of action is given by a State statute such right may be enforced in another State, and also that such right will be enforced according to the forms and modes of procedure in use in the latter State. Or, to put it briefly, the lex loci contractus governs the rights of parties, but the lex fori determines the remedy. This principle has been applied in a large number of cases arising upon contracts; but in the recent case of Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 11, it was applied to a statute of this description, where the administrator brought his action in another State. An almost unbroken series of adjudications has also established the further proposition that the time within which an action may be brought relates generally to the remedy, and must be determined by the law of the forum. Hence, it would follow that if this statute contained no limitation of time within which an action must be brought, and the time had been left to depend upon the general statutes of limitations in the Province of Ontario, it is clear that we should have disregarded such statute, and permitted the plaintiff to bring this action at any time before actions of this description would be barred by the statutes of this State. "An exception to this general rule, however, is suggested by Mr. JUSTICE STORY, in his Conflict of Laws, sec. 582, of cases where the statutes of limitation or prescription of a particular country do not only extinguish the right of action, but the claim or title itself, ipso facto, and declare it a nullity after the lapse of the prescribed period; and the parties are within the jurisdiction during the whole of that period, so that it has actually and fully operated upon the case. "Suppose, for instance, personal property is adversely held in a State for a period beyond that prescribed by the laws of that State, and after that period has elapsed the possessor should remove into another State, which has a longer period of prescription, or is without any prescription, could the original owner assert a title there against the possessor, whose title, by the local law and the lapse of time, had become final and conclusive before the removal?' "The cases of Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 361; Goodman v. Munks, 8 Port. (Ala.) 84 (overruled by Jones v. Jones, 18 Ala. 248); Brown v. Brown, 5 Ala. 508; and Fears v. Sykes, 35 Miss. 633, do in fact lend support to this distinction; the general tenor of these cases being to the effect that where the statute of one State declares that the possession of personal property for a certain period vests an absolute title, such prescription will be enforced in every other State to which the property may be removed or wherein the question may arise. "In the Pittsburgh, Cin., & St. L. R. Co. v. Hine, 25 Ohio St. 629, it was held that under an act requiring compensation for causing death by wrongful act, neglect, or default, which gave a right of action, provided such action should be commenced within two years after the death of such deceased person, the proviso was a condition qualifying the right of action, and not a mere limitation on the remedy. The accident occurred on the 24th of September, 1870. The suit was begun on the 23d of January, 1873. In March, 1872, the act was amended by increasing the amount for which recovery might be had, and by omitting the limitation contained in the proviso, and also by repealing the section as it stood before. The court held that in creating or giving time of acceptance, and not from the time of giving public notice thereof.1 But it has been held in North Carolina that as the executor's right to the personal property of his testator commences at the death of the testator, the statute begins to run against him from that time.2 But such the right it was within the power of the legislature to impose upon it such restrictions as were thought fit; and if restrictions were imposed they must be referred to the newly created right itself, if the restricted language used would warrant it; for the act being in derogation of the common law, any restrictive language used in it must be construed against the right created by it. And it was also suggested that it would have been different if the act were merely remedial as to existing rights. It was further held that the plaintiff's right must be determined as the act originally stood, and was therefore subject to the restrictions contained in the proviso, and the action, not having been brought within the two years, could not be sustained. The case differs from the one under consideration only in the fact that the limitation was contained in a proviso to the section directing in whose name the action should be brought. "In the case of Eastwood v. Kennedy, 44 Md. 563, it was held that where a statute of the United States for the District of Columbia gave a claim for the recovery of usurious interest, provided suit to recover the same be brought within one year after the payment of such interest, it would not be competent for a party to recover in Maryland after the lapse of a year, and that the courts of that State were bound to respect and apply the limitations contained in the act. The cases of Baker v. Stonebraker, 36 Mo. 349, and Huber v. Stiener, 2 Bing. N. C. 202, are somewhat analogous, but throw little additional light upon the question. the same subject-matter, and that every such action shall be commenced within twelve months after the death of a deceased person. "To permit an action to be brought upon it here after the twelve months would be giving plaintiff a right which the statute he invokes does not authorize, and to that extent nullifying the statute. In the Dennick case the Supreme Court held that the method of distribution provided by the local act, although a part of the remedy, should be pursued by the court in which the action is brought. It would seem from this that even so far as the remedy is concerned the court will not universally adopt the law of the former. The true rule I conceive to be this: that where a statute gives a right of action unknown to the common law, and either in a proviso to the section conferring the right or in a separate section limits the time within which an action shall be brought, such limitation is operative in any other juris diction in which action may be brought." 276. Sewall v. Valentine, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 2 Arnold v. Arnold, 13 Ired. (N. C.) L. 174. The statute is a good defence in cases where time has once begun to run in favor of a debtor to an estate in the lifetime of the intestate, the absence of a personal representative in such a case not being sufficient to make an exception to the wellknown and almost universal rule in these matters, that when time has once commenced to run it will never cease. Rhodes v. Smethurst, 4 M. & W. 42; Freake v. Cranefeldt, 3 My. & Cr. 499; 2 Wms. Saund. 63 k; Sturgis v. Darell, 4 H. & N. 622. This rule, however, as we shall is not absolutely without exception. And where an action abated by the death of a defendant debtor, it was allowed to be continued within a reasonable time, though the statutory period had elapsed in the interval. Curlewis v. Mornington, 7 El. & Bl. 283. In England, the rule as adopted in the North Carolina case is adopted where see, is not the rule generally adopted.1 The appointment of an administrator in one State does not put the statute in motion either for or against the estate in another State; but, as to all property or claims existing in such other jurisdiction, the statute remains suspended until proof of the will, or the appointment of an administrator there.2 SEC. 195. Executors de son Tort. An important exception to the rule previously stated exists where the defendant has taken possession of the property of the deceased debtor as executor de son tort, and subsequently obtains letters of administration. In such case time begins the creditor has not died intestate, but has appointed an executor, and that executor simply neglects to prove the will. In such instances the case is held to be different, and there does not exist any saving until proof. The reason of this distinction is that while an administrator derives his title wholly from the Court of Probate, and has no title to the property of the deceased till the grant of letters of administration is made out, an executor has a title immediately by virtue of the will. Woolley v. Clarke, 5 B. & Ald. 744. If, however, such executor eventually renounces probate, inasmuch as such renunciation relates back to the death of the testator, it seems doubtful how far the testator's estate could be held to have been represented at all, or time to have commenced to run against it. In fact, it may be argued that though, when an executor delays to prove a testator's will, time runs against him from the testator's death, yet that if he eventually fails to prove at all, and an administrator is appointed, time does not run against the latter until his appointment. But upon this point there is no direct authority. Garland v. Milling, ante; Forrest v. Douglas, ante. 2 Lee v. Gause, 2 Ired. (N. C.) L. 440. In Hobart v. Conn. Turnpike Co., ante, the testatrix died in New York owning stock in the defendant company, upon which certain dividends had been declared. The testatrix died in New York in 1822, and her will was duly proved there. In September, 1841, administration cum testamento annexo was granted in Connecticut, and an action instituted against the defendant for such dividends. The statute of limitations was interposed as a bar to the claim, but the court held that the statute did not begin to run until administration had been granted in Connecticut, and that the proving of the will and qualification of the executor in New York did not affect the question. "We do not recognize the existence of administrators or executors appointed or approved in a foreign jurisdiction," said HINMAN, J. "These execu tors, therefore, have no power here, having never proved the will here, nor given bond to our Probate Court. The dividends for which this suit was brought, it will be observed, accrued to Mrs. Starin's estate after her death and before her will had been proved, or administration taken on her estate, and more than six years before the commencement of this suit. But administration was not granted on her estate until 1840, much less than six years previous to the commencement of the suit. And the question is, whether the plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitation. And this depends upon the answer to another question, namely, When did the statute begin to run against this claim? Was it when the dividends accrued, or when administration was granted on her estate ? And this precise question was decided in the case of Murray v. East India Co., 5 B. & Ald. 204, in which ABBOTT, C. J., giving the unanimous opinion of the Court of King's Bench, after referring to the authorities, and coming to the conclusion that they sustained the claim of the plaintiff that the statute did not begin to run until the granting of administration, says: "Now, independently of authority, we think it cannot be said that a cause of action exists unless there be also a person in existence capable of suing." See also Perry v. Jenkins, 1 My. & Cr. 118; Cary v. Stephenson, 2 Salk. 421. Burdick v. Garrick, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 241. |