The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-07


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 forfeited with a writing
for 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-
pei!ant which it would have been in
cunbent upon her to prove if plaintiff
had sued in ejectment for the prop
erty and introduced the deed. The
bringing of the action four years
and four months after January /, 1900,
the time fixed in the last bond for
reconveyance conditioned on pay
nent. was not 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 eNecutriX. Whether this is so is
lmmarterial for although she as exc
! curtrix S named IA Il 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 plaintiff 5 rights to this
extent would not be curtailed nor
affected by failure to present claim
to the eXecutr1, nor by her rejection
Of the claim filed, nor by his ON
mission 10 sue within the time pre-
scr.Ded tor &C mmenc'nS actions on
rejected claims against estates of de-
ceased persons, as is necessary when
il j. desired to reach the assets OF
The estate.
ia Cookies V. Culberston, 8 New. 20',
as here. a deed was given as security
Tor a loan which was not evidenced
IN writing 1t was said in the opinion
The remedy upon the debt IS barred
Dy the statute. but the debt was not
thereby eAtinguished; and as the
statute CT limitations of this State
applies to suits in equity as well as
have enforced payment by foreclosure
Of the mortgage within four years
after the cause OF action accrued
! He had two remedies, one upon the
debt. the other upon the mortgage );
by losing one he does not necessarily
lose the other" Since the rendition
of the decision the time for cOmmenc-
ing actions on written instruments
has been extended from four to six
years and under well recognized
principles plaint,ff was allowed that
length Of time after the date fixed
for payment Of the $1,000 and for the
termination of the bond or a recon
, yeyance. which was January l, 1900
AS said in Borden V. Glow, y New
21S, at is a rule N regard to the
statute of limitations that the statute
begins to run when the debt is due
+ and an ac-.Cn can be instituted upon
t it. Under the argument tor appel
ant the four years from the final loar
t on February S. 1896 to the t:me fol
4 payment OF the $1,000 under the bono
Il on January /, 1900, would be de
, Quoted from the six years allowed
= Tor bringing suit, and on that theor.
. if the maturity Of the loan had beer
i. more than SIX years, instead OF fou
+ plaintiff : cause of acton would have
9 Deen barred before it accrued.
Q The judgment Of the District Cour
, IS affirmed.
= TALBOT. j.
, We concur.
= Fitzaaraid. {. J.
NorCrgsa, J.