¶1 The first exception taken by the defendant’s counsel is to the ruling of His Honor in regard to postponing a (reference for an account until the issue made by the pleadings .upon the.statute of limitations was tried. When a case *141 involves both ah account and the trial of an issue by a jury,, they cannot be investigated at the same time — the one must-precede the other — and it would be needless to increase the-expense and trouble of a reference when the ease might-result adversely to the plaintiff upon the finding of the jury. But when the issue is first tried, if the verdict should be for the defendant the account could still be taken ; but if for the plaintiff, that would put an end to the case and save the necessity of an account. This practice is recognized and recommended in the case of A. T. & O. R. R. Co. v. Morrison, 82 N. C., 141. See also Parham v. Lomax, 73 N. C., 76.
¶2 The other exception taiken was to- the judgment rendered by'His Honor upon the special verdict in relation to the statute of limitations. In this there was no error. The jury found that all of the plaintiffs were of fall age on the' 20th day of May, 1872, that the defendant qualified as executor on that day and on the same day put up written notices at the court house door and four other public places in the county of Randolph, notifying creditors to present their claims within twelve months and five days- from that date. The statute of limitations applicable to this case is chapter 17 of Battle’s Revisal, Title 8, section 32, subdiv. 2, which provides that actions must be brought “ by any creditor of s> deceased person against his personal or real representative, within seven years next after the qualification of the executor or administrator and the making the advertisement required by- law for creditors of the deceased to present their claims, &c. We do not think it was .intended by this statute that the seven years should begin to run from the time of;1 making the advertisement.” If that was the intention of the legislature they would not in the same connection have employed the words i! next after the qualification of the executor or administrator ” as that is an event which must precede the advertisement and which under the pro *142 visions of the law may do so, by the space of twenty days. To give the act that construction, there would be two events •and leave it doubtful from which the time is to be computed. We are of the opinion, the words “ and making the advertisment required by law,” &c., were used simply to qualify the provisions of the act, and that the act- should be construed as if it read within seven years next after the ■qualification of the executor or administrator, provided he shall have made the advertisement required by law for creditors of the deceased to present their claims, &c. So that for an executor or administrator to make out his defence of the statute of limitations, he must show that seven years have transpired after his qualification before the commencement of the action and that he has advertised as required' by law. Without proof of the advertisement, the plea of ■the statute of limitations cannot avail him. We are sustained in this construction by the interpretation which has been put by this court upon the act of 1789, That act ■ (Rev. Code, ch. 46, § 16,) provided that every executor or ’ administrator should advertise within two months after qualification for creditors to present their claims within the time prescribed by law, and by chapter 65, section 12, apart of the same act, that all creditors residing in the state should present their claims within two years from the qual- • ification of the executor or administrator, and if they should fail to do so, they should be forever barred from the recovery of their debt. Though the failure to present the claims is • declared to be an absolute bar (except against those laboring ■ under disabilities) without any qualification as to the adver- ■ tisement, this court has held that this statute did not protect an administrator unless he had paid over the assets to the distributees and taken refunding bonds as well as advertised in conformity to the act. Cooper v. Cherry, 8 Jones, 323. The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.
¶3 No error. Affirmed.