The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-06-13
Decision

On February Is, 1892, the plaintiff
,oaaed s40O to William Bernard, now
deceased, and 70 secure the payment
thereof ne decided to plaintiff on that
aag The lands described in the CON-
plant, and at the same time plaintiff
executed to him a bond for a deed
whereby he agreed TO re-con1ey the
property on or before February IS,
1898 provided that he was paid on Or
before that date $500, and also SIS
annually. On February 8, 1895 paint
Il loaned Bernard the additional sum
o. $500 and accepted as security for
,7nan ana interest a deed made
- plaintiff at the time the $3.50 was
Borrowed, and by release made in
wing Acknowledged and recorded,
Barnard then relieved him from all
3bl'gat. ms resulting from the bond
rsde February IS, 1899, and there
E9on plaintiff executed to Bernard a
-eE bond, dated February 8, 1896,
soaditioned that plaintiff would make
and deliver good and sufficient con
revance OF the property to Bernard,
3cogided Plaintiff was paid $1,000 on
ar before January !, 1900 and also
$50 annually, and further proVisloned
zaar If Bernard paid these amounts
AID the taxes he would be entitled to
ne use and possession Of the premises
!. receipt and the statement or ad-
G1sssiou of Bernard a short time be-
IRE lis, death indicate that the only
s.4yneus were on interest to the
an. day of February 1897. He died
II, following year and letters test
.smers ary were issued to his wido"
ars. Harriet Bernard who has since
married G. J. Octh. Plaintiff de-
usud arising OUT of the above tran
.actions was presented against the
state and by her as executriX was
aiacted on August 90. 1898. There
< testimony indicating that she had
7,reylousIy recognized the demand by
t.ndeaycrlng to borrow money Tor It's
.svmeut. On July a.. 1901 the prep
ATTY was set over to her by decree
a. distribution. From judgment de
rreeing the deed to plaintiff to be
= mortgage and ordering a fore
obscure and sale of the premises te
satistv the amount, S1731.2o ant
Ts40 costs. found due to plalatln
aae appeals.
The well settled doctrine that
iced executed merely for the purpos'
a. securing a debt will be construe'
Is a mortgage IS not assailed, but TO
APPELLANT it is contended that as SUI
xas not brought until April, 1904
more than six years after the las
man ard the giving OF the last Don
an FEBRUARY 8, 1886. and more ina
7a,,., years after the time, January
,a,o tixed ter Conveyance. thef'
znder. conditioned on payment, tn
action is barred by the statute
limitations 1t is sald Ill
or executing a written release of tt
Irst bond and accepting new OIL
INSTEAD, at the time he boyrowe
the last amount. 5000. Bernard G.
not sign any writing agreeing
pay or acknowledging a cebt, az
that therefore. the obligation to 3:
on his part was merely verbal al
you'd be barred in four years. v
10 not, so view that transaction. Mo
instrument in daily use. such as dee
mortgages, notes, orders, drafts Al
checks are signed by only one Of t
2artses,but are not for that reas
verbal nor half verbal. Although 3,
gard executed no note or writ:
agreeing to pay any money. he sign
. deed absolute in terms conveys
sne property to pla.ntlff. and by Il
suit. and the decree no more is soua
tAs1 he under his signature obligat
ntAsek 10 yield. In equity the
ten3i':a Of the time for a reconv
Euc&: py plaintiff, givena-hy. the 8
Eeade.. Of the first bond and the
sczrion Of q new one ought to
considered a. sefective as Y pla1