The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-08


plaintiff as it now stands. It was
not necessary to have these extra
deeds and if they had been executed'I
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
for ali 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-
peilant which it would have been in
cumbent upon her to prove if plaintiff
had sued in ejectment for the prop.
erty I'D 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
reconyeyance conditioned on nay
nent. was not too late
1t IS also urged that suit was not
begun within the tine required by
the provisions OF the Probate Act
after the rejection of the claim by
the executrix. Whether this is so is
immarterial for although she as exc
cUrJriX 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 piaintills rights to this
extent would not BE curtailed nor
affected by failure to present claim
to the executrcS, nor by her REJECTION
/ OF the claim fled. 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 when
il is desired to reach the assets OF
the estate.
In Cookies Y. Cuiberston, 9 New. 2ol,
as here, deed was given as security
! for loan which was not evidenced
IN writing 1t was said in the opinion
The remedy upon the debt IS barred
by the statute. out the debt was not
thereby excinguished; and as the
statute of limitations Of this State
applies to suits i'll equity as we'll as
act IONS at law, the creditors could
have enforced payment by foreclosure
OF the mortgage within four years
AFTER the cause OF acuon accrued
Ee had two remedies, che upon the
debt. the other Hpon c.le mortgage;
by losing one ne does not necessarily
lose the oJner Since the rendition
of the decis on the time Tor commenc'
ing actions on written instruments
has been extended from four TO sly
wears and under We'll recognized
principles plaintiff was allowed thai
length Of time after the date fixed
Tor payment Of the S1V0o and for the
termination OF the bond or a recon
yeyance, which was January l, 1900
AS said IN Borden Y. Glow. Il New
, 27S, 1T is d rule ~ regard 20 TIL
, statute OF limitations that me statute
/ begins TO run when the DEBT is du
: and an action can be tnall.Gted upol
t it," Under the argument Tor appel
!. ant the four years from the Iinal ioa
It on February !. 1896 % the time TO
d payment o4 the SI0Uy uDaer The bon
Il on January /, 1900, would be DC
!, Quoted from the SIX years Above
2 for bringing suit, and Gu tuat theor
q ii The maturity ol the loan had bee
If more than SIX years, instead OF tot
# plaintiffs cause of acton would hay
,e been barred BEFORE it accrued.
,e The judgment Of the District Cou
~ is affirmed
TALBOT. j.
y We concur.
Fi;zgerald, c. ].