
    Matter of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of Cornelius Fonda, Deceased.
    
      (Surrogate’s Court, Saratoga County,
    
    
      July, 1902.)
    Administration—Construction of Code C. P., § 1822, Establishing a Six Months Limitation Where a Claim is Rejected.
    Where an administratrix rejects a claim against her estate and-the claimant does not sue at law within six months after such rejection and within said six months she files a written consent that the sur-rogate may determine the claim on her judicial settlement, she waives the defense created by Code C. P., § 1822 and the creditor may compel her to account although he did not until after the expiration of said six months file his written consent that the surrogate might determine the claim.
    
      A petition was presented to the surrogate by Schuyler C.Brown who claimed to be a creditor of the deceased, stating among other things, that more than eighteen months had elapsed since letters of administration of the goods, etc., of said deceased were issued to Susannah T. Clapp, and praying for a citation requiring her to show cause why she should not render and settle her account of her proceedings as such administratrix.
    A citation was issued accordingly and the administratrix appeared and filed an answer to the petition in which she alleged that the petitioner presented his claim to her in writing on the' 5th day of December, 1900; that she disputed and rejected the claim on the 17th day of January, 1901; that on the 18th day' of June, 1901, she filed a consent with the surrogate that the claim should be heard and determined by him upon the judicial settlement of her accounts and served a copy of such consent upon the petitioner on the 19th day of June, 1901; but the petitioner did not file a consent on his part within six months after such rejection.
    Upon the hearing the facts alleged in the answer of the administratrix were established, and the additional fact that on the 24th day of March, 1902, the petitioner filed with the surrogate a consent that the claim should be heard and determined upon the judicial settlement of the accounts of the administratrix. She now insists that the petitioner’s claim is barred by the short statute of limitations, and that he has no standing to maintain a proceeding to compel her to render and settle an account of her proceedings as administratrix of the above-named decedent.
    Hiram C. Todd, for petitioner; James W. Verbeck, for administratrix, opposed.
   Lester, S.

It is provided by section 1822 of the Code of Oivil Procedure that, where an administrator rejects a claim against the estate of a decedent, unless a written consent shall be • filed by the respective parties with the surrogate that such claim may be heard and determined by him upon the judicial settlement of the account of such administrator, the claimant must commence an action for the recovery thereof within six months after the dispute or rejection; in default whereof he and all the persons claiming under him are forever barred from maintaining such an action thereupon, and from every other remedy to enforce payment thereof out of the decedent’s property.

It will be observed that by the provisions of the section, unless a consent is filed by the respective parties the claimant is barred from his remedy. The counsel for the administratrix argues that this consent must be filed by both parties within six months after the claim is rejected. The statute does not provide thus in express terms, but the counsel for the administratrix argues that such is the implication of the language employed.

This statute however, which is in derogation of the ordinary rights and remedies of a claimant, must be strictly construed. It will not do to take away such rights and remedies by implication. Nor is any special reason seen why the court should yield to such an implication. The administratrix, within the period of six months after her rejection of the claim, consented that the surrogate should hear and determine it upon the judicial settlement of her account. She might have withheld her consent until the expiration of six months, and, in that case, the claimant might have lost his remedy; but she did not adopt such a course. She voluntarily consented on her part. If, at the time of the judicial settlement, no such consent by the claimant should be on file, juris-' diction to hear and determine the claim would not be conferred upon the surrogate since the consent of the respective parties is required; but the-consent having been given by the administratrix, I am unable to see any good reason why the claimant may not, at any time before the final accounting, file his consent, and thus confer jurisdiction upon the surrogate at that time to hear and determine the claim.

I am therefore of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner is not barred by the statute, but that she has a right to call upon the administratrix to account.

The petitioner may therefore have an order directing the administratrix to render and file an account of her privileges on or before the -30th day of July, 1902, and to attend from time to time before the surrogate for the purpose of such accounting.

Ordered accordingly.  