This
The defendants Thompson appeal, claiming that the judgment is erroneous because an action on their promissory note to the plaintiff was barred by section 25-205, R. R. S. 1943, at the time this action was commenced. The defendants rely upon Brainard v. Hall,
Prior to 1869 there was no separate statute of limitations applicable to mortgages. In 1869, section 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 25-202, R. R. S. 1943), applicable to actions for the recovery of title or possession of land, was made applicable to mortgages. Laws 1869, § 1, p. 67. In Hale v. Christy,
The quotation from Hurley v. Estes, supra, to the effect that no action can be maintained on a mortgage after an action on the debt is barred, which appears in Brainard v. Hall, supra, was inadvertent. The rule has been to the contrary since the 1869 amendment to section 25-202, R. R. S. 1943. See, Cheney v. Cooper,
The judgment'of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
