This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
A group of statutes analogous in some respects to statutes of limitation may be briefly noted. These are the statutes which provide that in administering the estates of decedents, insolvents and the like, claims against such estates must be presented within a certain time or be barred.1 A modification of the statute shortening the time for presenting claims, is not retroactive unless the statute specifically so provides.2 The repeal of the statute of non-claim before the time limited therein has expired leaves the claim subject to the ordinary statute of limitations.3 Under such statutes a creditor who has neglected to present his claim in time cannot evade the bar of the statute by suing in another court than that administering the trust.4 Thus while a creditor who is a nonresident cannot be prevented from suing in the Federal courts, he cannot, by suing in such courts evade the bar of the statute.5 New assets received after the time limited may be subjected to claims which are barred as to the rest of the estate.6 In some jurisdictions such statutes do not apply to estates admin istered as solvent estates -when no time is fixed within which such claims must be presented.7 In order to stop the operation of the statute the claim must be presented by the creditor or by his duly authorized agent.8
1 Jacob's Estate. 119 la. 176; 93 N. W. 94; First National Bank v. Sherman, 117 Mich. 602; 76 N. W. 97; Jorgenson v. Larson, 85 Minn. 134; 88 N. W. 439; Clark v. Gates, 84 Minn. 381; 87 N. W. 941; Beek-man v. Richardson, 150 Mo. 430; 51 S. W. 689; Fitzgerald v. Bank. 64 Neb. 260; 89 N. W. 813; Thurber v. Miller. 11 S. D. 124; 75 N. W. 900; Fullerton v. Bailey. 17 Utah 85; 53 Pac. 1020; Fields v. Mundy's Estate, 106 Wis. 383;.80 Am. St.
Rep. 39; 82 N. W. 343; Butler v. Templeton, 115 Wis. 382; 91 N. W. 969.
2 Morvissett v. Carr, 127 Ala. 277; 27 So. 844.
3 Judgment. Ryans v. Boogher, 169 Mo. 673; 69 S. W. 1048.
4 Security Trust Co. v. Bank, 187 U. S, 211.
5 Security Trust Co. v. Bank, 187 U. S. 211.
6 Copeland v. Fifield. 180 Mass. 223; 62 N. E. 249.