The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-06-04
49, -
OFFICIAL ADVERTISING

III ud0 COW eyed the property 10 Der
nard and taken new deed from him,
which would have left the title N
plaintiff as it now stands. 1t was
not necessary to have these extra
deeds and if they had been executed
they would not have varied the time
for 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 fortified 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 OF the security
which vary the unconditional terms
OF the deed. and which are shown
verbally, are facts favorable to ap-
pelIant which it would have been in
cum5ent upon her to prove if plaintiff
mad sued in ejectment Tor the prop
erty and introduced the deed. The
bringing Of the action four wears
and four months after January /, 1900,
the time fixed IN the last bond for
a reconyeyance conditioned on pay
ment. vas rot too late
1t IS also urged that suit was not
begun within the time required by
the provisions Of the Probate ACT
after the rejection of the claim by
the executriX. Whether tbs is so is
immarCerial for although she as exc
curtriy IS named as party defendant,
the allegations OF the complaint and
the decree may be considered as
running against the property only
No judgment Tor any deficiency after
sale or otherwise against the estate
IS demanded or given by the decree
wE.ch is directed only against the
premises and plaintiffs rights TO this
extent would not be curtailed nOl
to the executr1, nor by her rejection
OF the claim filed, nor by his ON
mission TO sue within the time pre-
scribed for con. Jaenc'ng actions or
rejected claims against estates Of de
ceased persons, as is necessary wher
it is desired to reach the assets Of
the estate
In Cookies V. Culberston, New. 2O7
as here. deed was given as security
for a loan which was not evidenced
in writing. 1t was said in the opinion
The remedy upon the debt IS barred
by the statute. but the debt was no
thereby extinguished; and as the
statute of limitations Of this State
applies to suits in equity as we'll a!
actions at law, the creditors coulc
have enforced payment by foreclosure
Of the mortgage within four year:
after the cause or action accrued
He had two remedies, one upon the
debt, the other upon the mortgage
by losing one he does not necessaril!
lose the other Since the rendition
of the decision the time for commenc
: ing actions on written instrument!
has been extended from four to ST!
years and under well recognized
principles plaintsH was allowed tina
length of time after the date fxet
for payment of the $1,000 and for tn,
termination of the bond or a recon
4 yeyance, which was January 1, 1900
, AS said in Borden V. Glow. q New
rs. 1t is a rule IN regard to tn
T statute of limitations that the statut
t begins to run when the debt is du
!, and an action can be instituted upol
I it, Under the argument Tor appel
ant the four years from the final loa
on February S. 1896 to the t.me to
y payment of the $1,000 under the bon
: on January l, 1900, would be dc
g Quoted from the six years above
II for bringing suit, and on that theor
It il the maturity Of the loan had bee
G more than six years, instead CT fOu
G plaintiffs cause OF action would hav
r been barred before it accrued.
\ The Judgment of the District Cou
0 is affirmed
d TALBOT. ].
y We concur.
~