The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-06-13
OFFICIAL ADVERTISING

III had conveyed the property to Ber |
nard and taken new deed from him,
which would have left the title n
plaintiff as it now stands. 1t was I
not necessary to have these extra i
deeds and ii they had been executed
they would not have variei 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
fer all that is awarded him by the
judgment and FOR more if the property
S worth more.
Tie -oaa aid giving of the security
Wien vary the unconditional terms
Ct tie deed. md which are shown
Fersa.;y, are facts favorable to ap.
ce..ant watch It would have been in
cGnaea- upon her to prove If plaintiff
mad sued il ciectmeaC fer the prop.
e-ty ani introduced the deed. The
bringing Of tie acton four years
and four months after January /, 1900,
t.-e c...le ixeI II the las. bond for
"a -eec2yeyance conditioned on pay.
nent. :as cot TO- late
It IS also urged taat suit was not
begun within he sine required by
The provisions OF the Probate Act
after the rejection OF the claim BY
the e1ac,;--c..1 W-aatae. tl.s is so is
inn e..al f.r although she IS exc
Clrt--x IS named as party defendant,
the a.,:saticm of the complaint and
The decree may be considered as
running against the property only.
NO judgment Tor am deficiency after
sale or Otherwise against the estate
s demanded or given by the decree,
which IS directed only against the
premises and plaia-if rights TO this
extent would not be curtailed nor
affected by failure 70 present claim
to the. executr1. nor By Ter rejection
Of the claim died, nor BY his on
: mission TO sue within the time pre-
scribad fcr commencing actions on
rejected claims against estates OF de-
ceased persons. as IS necessary when
it IS desiraa to. reach the assets OF
the estate.
IL Cookies Y. Cuiberston, New. o0,,
as mere. deed was given as security
fer 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 not
thereby extingu;she.l; and as the
statute Of limitations of this State
applies to suits in 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 or 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
: lag actions on written instruments
. has been extended from four TO si1
: years and under well recognized
\ ~Jo oil bo
length OF time after the date ixet
; fer payment of the $1,000 and for tn,
termination of the bond or a recon
\ veyance, which was January l, 1900
e AS said in Borden V. Glow. q New
/ rs. st is a rule 81 regard to tn
r statute Of limitations that the statut
{ begins 10 run when the debt is du
/, and an action can be Instituted upo
It it, Under the argument TOR appel
d ant the four years from the final loa
l, payment of the $1,000 under the bon
e on January l, 1900, would be d.
d fer bringing suit, and on that theor
1t if the maturity of the loan had bee
"a more than six years. instead Of TO,
;, plaintiffs cause of action would ha,
been barred before it accrued.
The judgment of the District Cou
o is affirm
I'd TALBOT. J.
~ We concur. +
ID