The following excerpt is from Titus v. Poole, 145 N.Y. 414, 40 N.E. 228 (N.Y. 1895):
The principle of this case is decisive against the defense of the statute of limitations in the case at bar. It becomes unnecessary, in view of this decision, to review the various decisions theretofore made, bearing more or less upon the subject. We adhere to the decision in Hayden v. Pierce as a sound and reasonable construction of the somewhat ambiguous provision of section 414. There is an apparent incongruity in the particular case, that the legislature should give to a plaintiff a year after the termination of the former suit to bring an action against an executor or administrator, when the original action must have been brought within six months after the rejection of the claim. But the legislature was declaring a general rule applicable to all cases, and made no distinction, as it might perhaps have done if its attention had been drawn to the special case of an action to enforce a claim against the estate of a decedent which had been presented and rejected.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.