The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-06-09
=
OFFICIAL ADVERTISING

II had conveyed the property to Ber- |
Aard and taken new deed from him, |
which would have left the title N |
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
Gate therein fixed and extended for
payment and reconveyance.
Plaintiff is fortsned with a writing
TOR al that is awarded nim 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
Nerpdliy, are facts favorable to ap-
pelIant which it would have been in
cumbent upon her to prove if plaintiff
7"Ou al eJecIIneul LOT the prop
efty and introduced the deed. The
bringing of the action four years
ana Tour months after January /, 1900,
the time fixed in the last bond for
TeconFeyance 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
tie eXecutriX. Whether tbs is 50 IS
iIaAart eridl Tor although she as exc
curtr.X is named as a party defendant,
the allegations of the complaint and
the decree may be 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 PLAINTIFF rights to this
extent would not be curtaiIed nor
affected by failure 10 present claim
to the executr1-, nor by her rejection
+ of the claim flied, uor 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. CuIoerstOn, New. 20,,
as here. q deed was given as security
Ior loan which was not evidenced
IN writing. It was said in the opinion
The remedy upon the debt IS barred
by the statute. but the debt was not
thereby eEtinsuished: and as the
statute Of limitations Of this State
applies to suits in equity as well as
actions at law. the creditors could
have enforced payment by foreclosure
of the mortgage within four years
after the cause OF action accrued
He had two remedies, one upon me
debt, the other upon cne mortgage;
by losing one he does not necessarily
lose the other Since the rendIion
Of the decision the time for commenc-
lag actions on written instruments
has been extended from four TO six
years and under well recognized
principles plaintiff was allowed that
length or time after the date fixed
for payment of the $1,000 and fol the
termination Of the bond or a recon
Feyance, which was January l, 1900.
, AS said in Borden V. Glow, y New.
rs. 1t is rule IN regard to the
statute of limitations that the statute
, begins to run when the debt is due
and an action can be instituted upon
It. Under the argument 1or appel
ant the four years from the final loan
| on February s. 1896 to the time tor
, payment of the $1,000 under the bond
: on January l, 1900, would be de-
, Quoted from the six years allowed
t Tor bringing suit. and on that theory
t II the maturity of the loan had been
, more than six years, instead of fou1
plaintiffs cause Of acton would have
, / been barred before it accrued
The judgment of the District Court
is affirmed
TALBOT. j.