
    
      In re Whitney’s Estate.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    July 2, 1891.)
    Executors and Administrators—Disputed Claims—Reference.
    A note executed by a decedent was presented to the administrators in 1888, and was rejected by them in 1889. The note was apparently barred by limitation when decedent died, but was alleged to have been revived by a payment within the statutory period. Held, that the claim against decedent’s estate was a disputed claim, and the surrogate properly postponed an accounting by the administrators until the validity of such claim should be determined on a reference ordered for that purpose.
    Appeal from surrogate’s court, Westchester county.'
    Application by Mary A. Whitney for the judicial settlement of the accounts of Constant White and Isabel Whitney, as administrators of Seth Whitney, deceased. Petitioner presented to the administrator a note of decedent for $600 as a claim against the estate, and the claim was by them rejected. The surrogate held that the claim was disputed, and that it^should “be referred under the statute, and all further proceedings herein suspended, until the result of such reference be made known.” Petitioner appeals.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
    
      Abram J. Miller, for appellant. Franklin Couch, for respondents.
   Barnard, P. J.

The petitioner claims to hold a note for $600, upon which there is interest due from March 1, 1886, against Seth Whitney, deceased. As such creditor he presented a petition asking for a judicial settlement of the accounts of the administrators. The administrators deny the debt. It appears that the claim was presented to the administrators in June, 1888, and it was finally rejected in July, 1889. The note was given in 1877, and was apparently barred by the statute of limitations when Whitney died. The claim is to be revived by a payment which is disputed. An administrator cannot allow a claim which is barred by the statute, and, while it was along time before the claim was finally rejected, it was never really admitted. Under the circumstances the surrogate’s order that the claim be deemed a disputed claim and the accounting postponed until after the claim is established, was just and proper, and his decree should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.  