Unless a special exception is made by the terms of the statute, no exception thereto exists in favor of persons under disabilities.1 Without specific exception such a statute applies to non-resident creditors.2 In the absence of statutory provision therefor facts arising subsequently to the time that the statute begins to run do not prevent it from continuing to run. Thus if a means is provided for presenting the claim to the probate court, or otherwise complying with the statute, the death3 or absence4 of the executor, or the revocation of letters of administration when a will is subsequently discovered,5 none of them start the statute of non-claim to running anew. The administrator cannot waive the operation of this statute.6 The promise of an administrator to pay the debt does not excuse a failure to present it as required by the statute.7 After the time fixed by statute has elapsed, the executor cannot waive the omission to present the claim for payment, and pay the debt.8 Knowledge of the existence of the claim which the personal representative may have does not dispense with presenting it.9 In Iowa, by statute, the existence of peculiar circumstances excuses presentation of claims. False statements by the executor as to the solvency of the estate and the fact that it is still unsettled may in equity excuse a failure to file the claim in time.10 False statements by the cashier of a bank with which holder of a note had deposited it that he had filed the claim, may excuse such failure.11

7 Appeal of Mason, 75 Conn. 406; 53 Atl. 895.

8 Rayburn v. Rayburn, 130 Ala. 217; 30 So. 365.

1 Morgan v. Hamlet, 113 U. S. 449; Hall v. Bumstead, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 2; Williams v. Conrad, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 412. 2 Security Trust Co. v. Bank. 187 U. S. 211; Winter v. Winter, 101 Wis. 494; 77 N. W. 883.

3 Lowe v. Jones, 15 Ala. 545.

4 Douglass v. Folsom, 21 Nev. 441; 33 Pac. 660.

5 Shepard v. Rhodes, 60 111. 301.

However, by statute granting new letters of administration may start the statute of non-claim to running anew. Eddy v. Adams, 145 Mass. 489; 14 N. E. 509.

6 Cockrell v. Seasongood, - Miss. -; 33 So. 77.

7 Lewis v. Champion, 40 N. J. Eq. 59.

8 Gilman v. Maxwell, 79 Minn. 377; 82 N. W. 669.

9 Borum v. Bell, 132 Ala. 85; 31 So. 454; Morse v. Ry., 191 111. 356; 61 N. E. 104; affirming 93 111. App. 31.