It  is  further  contended  that  the  judgment  must  be  re-
versed for  the  reason  that  there  is  no  proof  that  plaintiffs
ever  presented  their  demand  or  claim  to  the  administrators
for  their  allowance  or  rejection,  as  they  were  required  to
do  by  §  988  of  the  Code  of  Procedure.  But  this  con-
tention cannot  prevail.  In  the  first  place  it  is  question-
able, to  say  the  least,  whether  plaintiffs^  demand  was
such  a  claim  as  is  contemplated  by  our  statute.  The  stat-
ute (§980)  provides  that  "every  claim  presented  to  the
administrator  shall  be  supported  by  the  affidavit  of  the
claimant  that  the  amount  is  justly  due,  that  no  payments
have  been  made  thereon,  and  that  there  are  no  offsets  to
the  same  to  the  knowledge  of  the  claimant. "  It  is  difficult
to  see  how  the  plaintiffs  could  have  made  such  an  affidavit.
Their  action  was  instituted  for  the  very  purpose  of  discov-
ering and  ascertaining  the  "amount"  of  their  claim,  which
they  alleged  in  their  complaint  they  did  not  know,  and  had
no  means  of  knowing  except  by  an  accounting.
Where  the  demand  is  merely  for  equitable  relief  or  for
uncertain  and  unliquidated  damages  it  has  been  held,  and
not  without  reason,  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  present  it  to
the  administrator  for  allowance  or  rejection,  "for  it  is  ob-
vious that  in  all  such  cases  the  exhibition  would  be  but  an
idle  ceremony."  2  Woerner,  Adm'n,  §  386;  Evans^  Adm^r^
V,  Hardeman.  15  Tex.  480 ;  Toulouse  v,  Rurkett^  2  Idaho,
170  (10  Pac.  26);  Thompson  v.  Reno  Savings  Bank,,  19
Nev.  242  (3  Am.  St.  Rep.  883).
