
    *Taylor’s Administratrix, with the Will Annexed, v Richards and Co.
    Argued Thursday, Oct. 17th, 1811.
    a. Executors — Plea of “Fully Administered” — Evidence under.— If an executor or administrator wish to prove, by a deed of trust, that certain property in his possession is not to be considered as assets, he must specially plead the deed, and cannot give it in evidence, under a plea of “ fully administered,” in which it is not mentioned.
    , Statute of Limitations— Must Be Pleaded. — A defendant cannot have the advantage of the act, imposing a limitation of one year upon actions on store accounts, without pleading it; the court not being directed to cause such items as have been of more than one year’s standing, in such accounts to be expunged; or to instruct the jury to “disregard” them; and the jury not being re-duired to “disallow and reject” them, without a plea.
    See Hoskins v. Wright, administrator of Hoskins, 1 H. & M. 377, and Brooke’s administrators v. Shelly, 4 H. & M. 266.
    The appellees instituted an action of as-sumpsit, against the appellant, in the district court of Fredericksburg. The declaration contained the usual counts for goods, wares, and merchandise, sold and delivered to the testator in his life time; leaving the time of delivery blank. The defendant pleaded “non assumpsit by the testator,” and three pleas (special and general) of plene administravit; upon all which, issues were joined.
    On the trial of the cause, the defendant offered in evidence, the account of her administration settled by commissioners, and confirmed by the Court of Probate; in which account sundry slaves conveyed by a deed of trust, executed by the testator to Doctor Charles Taylor, and duly recorded, to secure large sums of money, were excluded from the estimate of assets, and a balance of 4331. Os. 8d. was stated in favour of the administratrix; also a copy of the said deed; but the court, on the plaintiff’s motion, rejected the same, because it was not pleaded.
    The defendant also moved the court to disallow and reject, from the account exhibited by the plaintiffs, all such items as were of more than one year’s standing;() ‘ ‘which the court refused to do, because the limitation of store accounts was not pleaded.” To which opinions of the court the defendant excepted. The jury found “that the said George C. Taylor deceased, did assume upon himself, as the plaintiffs have declared, and assessed their damages to 1271. Ss. 4d. They also found, “that the defendant had not fully administered; and that she *had assets sufficient to satisfy the several judgments and debts, in her first plea mentioned, and to pay the balance stated in the second plea to be due to herself, and also goods and chattels to the value of 5001.” Whereupon, judgment for the plaintiff' was entered; and the defendant appealed.
    Botts, for the appellant,
    insisted that, under the plea ot fully administered, the first matter to be settled by evidence was the nature, extent, and kinds of assets received by the administratrix: of course, the deed in question was equally admissible: to prove that certain negroes were not assets, as a bill of sale to the testator, or the birth of a negro child would have been to increase the assets.
    2. That as the dates of the items do not become part of the plaintiff’s case, until he shows his account in evidence; so that it would be irregular for the defendant to anticipate, and meet, such evidence by a plea; and as the words of the statute() apply exclusively to the account when shown in evidence, there was error in principle, as well as upon authority,() in excluding the operation of the statute in this case.
    Williams, contra.
    The District Court did right in rejecting the deed: since the defendant had not pleaded it, and thereby enabled the plaintiffs to reply, and prove its having- been kept up by fraud, or that no such debts were justly due from the testator.
    The court did, also, right, in refusing to strike out the items in the account of more than one year’s standing. The act imposing the limitation of one year upon actions on Store accounts, is not like the act which makes it the duty of the court to cause to be expunged such items as appear to have been due five years before the death of the testator or intestate,  As the court is not directed .in *the first of these acts, to cause the items to be expunged ; the limitation must be pleaded, as in other cases.
    
      
      Executors. — See monographic note on “Executors and Administrators” appended to Rosser v. Depriest, 8 Gratt. 6.
    
    
      
      Statute of Limitations. — See monographic note on “Limitation of Actions” appended to Herrington v. Harkins, 1 Rob. 591.
    
    
      
      (a) See Rev. Code, 1st vol. p. 108, ch. 76, sect. 7, 8,and 9.
    
    
      
      (b) Id sect. 9.
    
    
      
      (c) Beale v. Edmunson, 3 Call, 515, 516, 517.
    
    
      
       See Rev. Code, 1st vol. p. 167, ch. 92, sect. 55.
    
   Saturday, March 7th, 1812, the opinion of this court was pronounced that the judgment be affirmed.  