
    William H. Stone vs. Anthony Corcoran.
    In Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 189, § 8, and cap. 205, § 9, which provide that no action shall be brought against any executor or administrator within one year after his appointment, the word “action” is used technically for action at law, and does not mean suit in equity.
    Bill in Equity for an account.
    It appeared from the answer that- the respondent had acted as the agent of one Dennis, who died pending the suit after the-hill had been filed. The bill was then amended, and the executor of Dennis was made a party respondent. He appeared and pleaded that he was made a party without his consent, and that process issued against him within one year after proof of the will, contrary to Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 189, § 8. The plea was set down for argument.
    
      June 25, 1892.
    
      Edward D. Bassett, for complainant.
    
      Stephen A. Cooke & Louis L. Angell, for the respondent executor.
   Per Curiam.

We think that the word “action,” as used in Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 189, § 8, and cap. 205, § 9, which provide that no action shall be brought against any executor or administrator in his said capacity within one year after the will shall be proved or administration granted, except for certain causes specified, applies only to actions, strictly so called, at law, and not to suits in equity, and therefore that the plea of the respondent executor of the will of Dennis must be overruled.  