The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-10

plaintiff a. it now stands. It vas
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 fort,fed with a writing
for all that is awarded him by the
Judgment and for more if tho 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 an
pellant which it would have been in
cumbent upon her to prove if plaintiff
mad sued in ejectment for the prop
erty and introduced the deed. The
bringing OF the action four years
and four months after January 1, 1900,
the time fixed in the last bond for
ment. 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
/ bn 1tYiy ~,
imnlarterial for although she as exc
curtriX is named as a party defendant,
the allegations of the, complaint and
the decree may be considered ais
/ running against the property 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 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 to sue within the time pre-
scribed for commencing actions on
rejected claims against estates OF de
ceased persons, as is necessary Wner
il is desired to reach the assets OF
the estate.
In Cookies V. Culherston, 8 New. 2O7
as here. deei was given as securt!
! for q loan which was not evidenced
IN writing. II was said in the opinion
THE remedy Upon the debt Is barre'
by the statute. but the debt was no
u thereby extinguished; and as tn
statute of limitations of this Stat
applies to suits in equity as we'll =
actions at law, the creditors coult
have enforced payment by fcreclosur
! of the mortgage within four year
after the cause OF action accrued
He had two remedies, one upon tn
e debt, the other upon the mortgage
4 by losing one he does not necessaril,
v lose the other" Since the rendition
S of the decision the time for commend
J. ing actions on written instrument
e has been extended from four to 81.
?. years and under well recognized
e principles plaint,ff was allowed tina
: length of time after the date fxe
0 for payment of the $1,000 and for tn
termination of the bond or a recon
l. yeyance, which was January l, 1906
AS said in Borden V. Glow, q Ne1
a 278. ut is a rule N regard to tn
% statute of limitations that the statut
d begins to run when the debt is du
n and an action can be instituted upo
it it, Under the argument tor appel
l. ant the four years from the final loa
st on February s. 1896 to the t'me TO
ID payment of the $1,000 under the bon
n on January l, 1900, would be DE-
e. for bringing suit, and on that theor
70 if the maturity Of the loan had bee
or nOIc IMAM SlA Sdi ., 1AStCou VI Aoe
at plaintiffs cause OF action would haV
le been barred before it accrued.
ne The judgment OF the District Cou
M is affirmed.
:, TALBOT. ].
a We concur.
n Fitzgerald. c. ].
NOrcross, j.