The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-22
Decision

Un feoTuary 10, 1852, Tue pldlnI'A
loaned $500 to William Bernard. now
deceased, and TO secure the payment
thereof he decided to plaintiff on that
day the lands described in the COM
plant, and at the same time plaintf
executed to him a bond for deed
whereby he agreed TO re-convey the
property on or before February Is,
1898. provided that he was paid on or
before that date 500, and also s56
annually. On February S, 1896 plant
if loaned Bernard the additional sum
of $500 and accepted as security for
$1,000. ana interest deed made
60 plaintif at the time the $500 was
borrowed, and by release made in
writing Acknowledged and recorded,
Bernard then relieved him from all
obligations resulting from the bond
made February IS, 1893, and there
upon plaintiff executed to Bernard q
new bond. dated February s, 1896
conditioned that plaintiff would make
and deliver a good and sufficient con
veyance Of the property to Bernard,
provided Plant. was paid $1,000 on
or before January /, 1900 and also
$50 annually, and further provis!cned
that If Bernard paid these amounts
and the taxes he would be entitled to
the use and possession Of the premises
A receipt and the statement or ad
mission OF Bernard a short time be-
fore his death indicate that the only
payments We're on interest to the
Sth. day Of February 1897. He died
the following year and letters test
amentary were issued to his widow
Mrs. Harriet Bernard who has s.nce
married c. j. Ortiz. Plaintiff de-
mand arising out of the above tran
sactions was presented against the
estate and by her as eXecutriX was
rejected on August 20. 1898. There
is testimony indicating that she had
previously recognized the demand by
enaeavoring to. borrow money tor us
r,ayment. On July ii, 1907 the prop
erty was set over to her by decree
of distribution. From judgment de-
erecting the deed to plaintiff to be
a mortgage and ordering a fore
obscure and sale of the premises 10
satisfy the amount. $l1S1.2o and
s76.4O costs. found due to plaintiff,
she appeals.
The We'll settled doctrine that a
deed executed merely for the purpose
of securing a debt will be construed
as a mortgage rs not assailed. but for
appellant it is commended that as suit
was not brought until April, 1894,
more than six years after the Idsi
loan and the giving OF the last BOND
on February S, 1896. and more than
four wears after the time. January /
1890 fixed tor a conveyance lheie
under conditioned on payment, the
action j.; barred by the statute o
limitations. 1t is said ina
by executing a written release of The
first bond and accepting a new ont
the last amount. $500, Bernard diC
not sign any writing agreeing tc
pay oy acknowledging a debt, ant
that therefore the obligation 10 pa,
On his part was merely verbal an
would be barred in four years. W
do not SO view that transaction Mos
instrument in daily use, such as deed
mortgages, notes, orders, drafts an
checks are signed by only one OF til
part.es.b are not for that reaso
verbal nor half verbal. Although Be
nard executed no note or. writin
agreeing to pay any money, he signe
deed absolute in terms conveyir
the property to plaintiff, and by tn
suit and the decree no more is sougl
than he under his signature Obligatt
himself to yield. In equity the e
tens; 1 of the time for a recOnve
an" ny plaintiff, given by the ST.
re:.:c Of the first bond and the e
ecution of a new one oLsnt to
considered as effective as if plail
i'll had conveyed the property to b