
    Israel Jennings v. E. C. Browder, Administrator.
    The absence of an administrator beyond the limits of the state, prevents the running of the statute of limitations, during that period, against a claim upon the estate represented by him.
    Appeal from Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford.
    This suit was brought by Israel Jennings, against E. G. Browder, administrator de bonis non of the estate of William Jennings, deceased, on the 18th day of July, 1859, to establish, and have classed amongst the just claims against the said estate, a demand, evidenced by an instrument in writing, held by him against the deceased, for $138, which had been duly presented to the defendant for his allowance, on the 16th day of July, 1859, and by him rejected, on the day of filing this suit.
    The claim was due and payable on the 13th day of April, 1855. William Jennings departed this life, on the 22d day of October, 1857. J. R. Newbolt was appointed executor of the will of the deceased, on the 28th day of December, 1857; filed his bond, and took the oath required, on the 7th day of January, 1858; his bond was approved the 26th day of January, 1858, and in March, 1858, he left the state, and never returned to it. The defendant was appointed administrator de bonis non, &c., in September, 1858, and Newbolt was dismissed. Browder filed his bond and qualified, September 30th, 1858, and had since acted as administrator.
    The defendant pleaded the statute of limitation of four years, to which the plaintiff replied, by amendment to his petition, that Newbolt, the executor, &c., was absent from the state of Texas, from the 1st day of March, 1858, and that there was no person to whom the claim could be presented for allowance, as the representative of the estate within this state thereafter, until the appointment of the defendant.
    On the trial, a jury was waived, and the cause submitted to the court. Judgment in favor of the plaintiff, for $186.20. The defendant appealed, and assigned for error, the rendition of the judgment for the plaintiff, when, under the plea of the statute of limitations, the judgment should have been for the defendant.
    
      John O. McOoy, for the appellant.
    
      Gr. W. Gruess, for the appellee.
   Roberts, J.

The absence of the administrator from the state, for five months, as alleged in the amended petition, prevents the claim from being barred by the statute of limitations. (O. & W. Dig. 306, Art. 1355.) We see no error in the judgment; it is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  