Continuation of suit from the KY Court of Appeals. The appellants answered, and denied the liability of the sureties of R. D. BYBEE on this bond, and interposed the plea of the statute of limitations. Appellee replied, denying that they were released by such statute, and alledged that George Bybee had, since long before her cause of action accrued, been a nonresident of the State of Kentucky; that his place of abode was out of this state; and that for this reason she was obstructed and bindered in bringing and prosecuting her action against him. The court rendered judgment against all the appellants for the debt, and adjudged that appellee had a lien on George Bybee's interest in the house and lot at Glasgow, and enforced same, and stated in the judgment that it appeared that this house and lot had been sold in an action by the executors, and the proceeds of the sale were ordered to be paid to the master commissioner. It was further ordered that the two actions be consolidated, and, when the proceeds of sale were collected, the commissioner was ordered, out of George Bybee's one-third interest, to pay appellee's debt, interest, and costs. Appellee moved to dismiss this appeal, claiming that the principal of the judgment is less than $200, and that for that reason this court has not jurisdiction. This appeal is from a judgment enforcing a lien on real estate, and this court has jurisdiction. See the case of Fowler & Guy v. Pompelly (Ky.), 76 S. W. 173, and cases therein cited. Section 252, ..... citation of another case.... stated in brief that a surety for a guarding shall be discharged from al liability as such when five years shall have elapsed, without suit, after the accruing of the cause of action. It is agreed that appellee arrived at the age of 21 years in the month of June, 1891. Therefore her right to make the sureties of her guardian liable for this debt ceased in the month of June, 1896. Appellee does not attempt, in her reply, to allege any matter to avoid or stop the running of the statutes in favor of the sureties, but she does state that George Bybee, a devisee of Wm. Bybee, who was a surety, was a non-resident of the state, and for that reason she was hindered and obstructed in the collection of her claim by suit. Under the statutes and the facts as they appear of record, it was error to render judgment in favor of appellee against the executors of William Bybee and Clinton Bybee, the sureties of R. D. Bybee. It appears, however, that the court did not subject any part of the interest of R. D. and Clinton Bybee in the house and lot above mentioned to the payment of appellee's judgment. This was correct with reference to the interest of Clinton Bybee, but error in not subjecting R. D. Bybee's interest, as he was the principal, and the claim was not barred as to him. To be continued next week. Sandi Sandi's Puzzlers: http://www.gensoup.org/gorinpuzzles/index.php Sandi's site: http://ggpublishing.tripod.com/ Archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=south-central-kentucky