The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-23
Decision

Decision
On February IS, 1893, the plaintiff
loaned S4O0 to William Bernard. now
deceased. and TO secure the payment
thereof he decided TO plaintiff on that
day the lands described in the COM
paint, 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
il loaned Bernard the additional sum
Of $500 and accepted as security for
$1,000. ana interest 4 deed made
"a nlaintiff 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 a
new bond, dated February 8, 1896,
conditioned that plaintiff would make
and deliver a good and sufficient con
veyance Of the property to Bernard,
provided Plaintiff was paid $1,000 on
o. before January /, 1900 and also
So annually, and further proyisioned
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
anentary were issued to his widow
Mrs. Harriet Bernard who has since
married c. j. Orth. Plaintiffs de-
mand arising out of the above tran.
sactions was presented against the
estate and by her as eXecutrix was
rejected on August 90. 1898. There
is testimony indicating that she had
previously recognized the demand by
endeavoring to borrow money for its
payment. On July "a, 1901 the prop
erty was set over to her by decree
of distribution. From a judgment de-
ereeing the deed to plaintiff to be
a mortgage and ordering fore
obscure and sale of the premises to
satisfy the amount. $1731.25 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 mortgage is not assailed, but fol
appellant it is contended that as suit
was not brought until April, 1904
more than six years after the last
loan and the giving OF the last bono
On February s, 1896. and more thar
four years after the time. January l
1900 fixed Tor a conveyance lheie
under conditioned on payment, the
action is barred by the statute o
limitations. 1t is said tina
by executing a written release of tn,
first bond and accepting a new ont
instead, at the time he borrowej
the last amount. $500, Bernard dix
not sign any writing agreeing itC
pay or acknowledging a debt, ant
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
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
am oy plaintiff, given by the 81
reacc of the first bond and the e
ecution of . new one orsnt to
considered ~ effective as If plail
ID had conveyed the property to b
nard and taken new deed from hi
= =.
~