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

On February Is, 1898, the plaintiff
loaned s4Oo to William Bernard, now
deceased, and TO secure the payment
thereof he decided to plaintiff on that
Gay the lands described in the COM
plant, and at the same time plaintiff
executed TO him a bond for a 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 S36
annually. On February s, 1896 plant
if loaned Bernard the additional sum
OF $500 and accepted as security Tor
$1,000, and interest a deed made
20 plaintiff at the time the s+oo was
borrowed, and by release made in
Bernard then relieved him from all
obligations resulting from the bond
made February IS, 1898, and there
upon plaintiff executed to Bernard
new bond, dated February 8, 1895,
conditioned that plaintiff would make
and deliver a good and sufficient con
veyance CT the property to Bernard,
provided plaintiff was paid $1,000 on
or before January l, 1900 and also
$50 annually, and further provisloned
that if Bernard paid these amounts
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 were on interest to the
Sth. day of February 1897. He died
the following year and letters test
snentarv were issued to his widow
Mrs. Harriet Bernard who has spce
married C. j. Orth. 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
erdeayCring to borrow money lot us
nayment. On July "a, 1901 the prop
erty was set over to her by decree
of distribution. From a judgment de-
creeing the deed to plaintiff to be
a mortgage and ordering fore
obscure and sale of the premises TO
satisfy the amount, $1731.25 and
$3.50 costs. found due to plalntin'
she appeals.
The we'll settled doctrine that
deed executed merely for the purpose
of securing debt will be construed
as mortgage IS not assailed, but fol
appellant it is contended that as SUI
VAS not brought until April, 1914
more than six years after the las
loan and the giving OF the last DOM
nm February 8. 1896. and more ina.
four wears after the time, January
1aoD fixed tor a conveyance theie
under conditioned on payment, TN
action is barred by the statute o
limitations II is said ina
by executing a written release OF tn
first bond and accepting new on
INSTEAD, at the time he borrowe
the last amount. 5000, Bernard di
not sign any writing agreeing tt
pay or acknowledging a debt, an
that therefore the obligation to 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 tn
partses.but are not for that reaso
verbal nor half verbal. Although Be
nard executed no note or writir
agreeing to pay any money, he signe
q deed absolute in terms conveyir
the property to plaintiff, and by tn
suit and the decree no more rs sougl
than he under his signature obligatt
niMself to yield. In equity the e
ten s'a of the time for a reconve
anc=. by plaintnf, given by the 81
rende of the first bond and the e
ecution of 4 new one orsnt to