The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-06-14
OFFICIAL ADVERTISING

I'll had conveyed the property to Ber-
lard 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
fer ali that is awarded him by the
judgment and for more if tha.property
is worth more.
The loan and giving of the security
which vary the unconditional terms !
Of the deed. and which are shown |
Te:1a!ly, are facts favorable to ap-
De.lant which it would have been in !
cunbeat upon her to prove f 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,
ire .ir'o fivo1 in the ias- bond for
! Fecca ie,i;ncG CONDITIONED on pay
nent. was tCt too late
It IS also urged that suit was rot
Begin within the time required b.
the provisions of the Probate Act
after the rejection OF the claim by
the executrix. Whether tbs IS so IS
im-arlarial for although she as exc
. ctl-t-.c;. $ named as Il party defendant,
the allegations OF the complaint and
the decree may lie considered as
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 piaint!fi' 5 rights TO this
extent would not be cu-ta:ied nor
affected by failure % present a claim
to tle eXecutr-, nor By aer rejection
Of the CLAIM fled, nor b. his ON
mission to SUE within he time pre-
scribe! t3- commencing actions on
rejected claims against estates OF de-
ceased persons, as IS necessary Wien
it IS desired - reach the assets @.
the estate.
IL Cookies V CIIbeca.o,, g New. 20I,
as here. deed was given as security
tor i .0da which was not evidenced
y writing. It was said n he opinion
The remedy Upon the debt S barred
by the statute. but the debt was not
statue Of 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 o. action accrued
He had two remedies, one upon the
debt, the Other upon sHe mortgage;
by losing one he does not necessarily
lose the other Since the rendition
. of the decision the time for commenc-
: Tag actions on written instruments
. has bee, EXTENDED from four to six
years and under well recognized
} principles plaintiff was allowed that
length OF time after the date fixed
) Tor payment CT tae 5000 and for the
termination OF the bond or a recon
, veyance, which was January /, 1900
: As said II Borden V. Glow. q New
IS. 1t 5 rue - regard to the
Y statute CT limitations that the statute
t begins 10 rIln when the debt is due
. and an acticn can be Instituted upor
t IL. Under the argument Tor appel
d ant the four years from the final loa,
4 on February 5. 1896 to the time to
|, payment Ct the $1,000 under the bont
: on January !. 800, would be de
? Quoted from the six years allowet
If for bringing suit, and on that theor,
It if the maturity Of the loan had bee,
q more than SIX years, instead Of fou
- plaintiff cause OF action would hay
been barred before it accrued.
The judgment Of the District Cour
o is affirmed
d TALBOT. J.
y We concur.