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

If had conveyed the property to Ber
nard and taken new deed from him,
which would have left the title IN
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.
pellant which it would have been in
cumbent 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 l, 1900,
the time fixed in the last bond for
a reconveyance conditioned on pay
ment. was 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 executrlx, Whether tbs is SO is
lmLarterial for although she as exc
curtrix 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,
premises and plaintiffs rights to this
extent would not be curtailed nor
ouCNlSu ~ ASAAiNAC ~ ~ SSNAS - S~N-~->
to the executrl1, nor by her rejection
of the claim filed, nor by his ON
}, mission TO sue within the time pre-
scrbed for commencing actions on
rejected claims against estates OF de
ceased persons, as is necessary when
If is desired to reach the assets OF
the estate.
In Cookies V. Culberston, 9 New. 201
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 MOI
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 coult
have enforced payment by foreclosure
of the mortgage within four year:
after the cause or action accrued
! He had two remedies, one upon thu
debt, the other upon the mortgage
by losing one he does not necessaril.
, lose the other Since the rendition
e of the decision the time for commenc
= iag actions on written Instrument
e has been extended from four to si
years and under well recognize'
o principles plaintiff was allowed tina
length of time after the date IKE
l. for payment of the $1,000 and for tn
termination of the bond or a re-cor
a veyance, which was January l. 1906
d 278. 1T is rule IN regard to tn
)r statute Of limitations that the statut
it begins to run when the debt is du
4, and an action can be instituted upo
st it, Under the argument tor appel
i'd ant the four years from the final loa
IN on February s. 1896 to the t.me II
!, payment OF the $1,000 under the bon
e. on January /, 1900, would be d
le Quoted from the six years above
of for bringing suit, and on that theol
at II the maturity Of the loan had bee
,e more than six years, instead of fo1
>. plaintiffs cause OF action would ha,
been barred before it accrued.
- The judgment OF the District Cou
to is affirmed.
nd TALBOT. J.
ay We concur.
~ FITZGERALD. C.. J.