The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-06-15
OFFICIAL ADVERTISING

iii had conveyed the property to Ber-
nard and taken new deed from him,
which would have LETT the title n
plaintiff as it now stands. Il was
not necessary to have these extra
deeds and if they had been executed
they would not have varied the time
tor bringing SUIT and the initiation OF
the running OF the statute which was
controlled by the last bond and the
date therein fixed and extended for
payment and reconveyance.
Plaintiff is fCrtsiied with a writing !
fer all that is awarded him by the
judgment and for more if The property
IS worth more.
The loan and giving o. the security
which vary the unconditional. terms !
Of the deed. and which are shown
verbally, are facts favorable to ap-
reliant which it would have been il
cCnbent Upon her to prove f plaintiff
Eai s!ed in ejectment for the prop
erty and introduced the deed. The
bringing CT the actlcc four years
aud four months after January /, 1900,
tie time fixed in the .as- bond for
I recClveyance Cold!t.Onej Ga pay
EeDt. vas Eot too late.
It IS also urged that suit was not
begun within the time required by
the provisions Of the Probate ACT
after the rejection Of lie claim by
. tae elecutriX. Whether tl.s IS so is
l-nE-arte.ial for although she as exc
c1rtr.::: IS named as a party defendant.
the allegations of the complaint and
the decree may be considered as
running against the properly only.
no judgment for any deficiency after
sale or otherwise against the estate
is demanded Or given by the decree,
which is directed only against the
premises and plaintiffs rights 10 this
extent would no. be cur-ailed nor
affected by failure d present CAIN
u tla execut-c, nor By her rejection
q The claim lied, no. By his ON
mission To STE within the time pre-
sc-.5e+ to- commencing actions on
rejected claims against estates Of de-
ceased persons, as IS necessary "hen
III : desired - reach the assets OF
the estate.
IN Cookies V. Cu.oe-stoC, 9 NeT. 20.,
as hers. deed was given as security
f5- a loan which was not evidenced
The remedy upon the debt s barred
. by the E.atute. but the debt was not
thereby extinsuished; and as the
statute CT limitations Of this State
applies TO suits il equity as vel! as
actions at law, the creditors could
have enforced payment by foreclosure
CT the mortgage within four year:
2 after the cause OF action accrued
/ He had two remedies, one upon The
debt, the other upon cHe mortgage;
5 by losing one he does not necessaril;
= lose the other" Since the rendition
e Of the decision the time for commenc
= lag actions or written instrument:
e has been extended from four to 81,
= years and under well recognized
o principles plaintiff was allowed tina
q length Of time after the date fxet
I, for payment Of the $1,000 and for tn
termination OF the bond or a recon
a veEa2ce, which was January l, 1901
,e AS saii! in Borden V. Glow. q Ne,
.G rs. 1t Is a rule an regard to tn
,r statute Of limitations that the statut
it begins to run when the debt is du
4, and an action can he instituted upo
st it, Under the argument Tor appel
nd ant the four years from the final loa
Al On February S. 1886 to the t.me IL
l, payment Of the $1,000 under the bon
e. On January /, 1900, would be d.
be Quoted from the six years above
OF for bringing suit, and On that theol
at if the maturity OF the loan had bee
/, more than six years, instead Of fol
-, plaintiffs cause OF action would ha,
been barred before it accrued
The judgment of the District Cou
10 Is affirmed.
nd TALBOT. J.
)ac Wa cnpcrr