The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-09
Decision

On February Is, 1898, the piainLlH /
loaned $500 to William Bernard, now
deceased, and to secure the payment
thereof he decided to plaintiff Oh that
day the lands described in the COM
plant, and at the same time plant If
executed TO him bond for a deed
whereby he agreed TO reconvey the
yroperty on or before February is,
1898, provided that he was paid on or
before that date $500. and also SIG
annually. On February s, 1896 paint
If loaned Bernard the additional sum
Of $500 and accepted as securNy Tor
$1,000, ana interest deed made
10 plaintiff 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, 1898, and there
upon plaintiff executed 10 Bernard a
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 Plaintiff was paid $1,000 on
or. before January /, 1900 and also
$50 annually, and further provisioned
that if Bernard paid these amounts
and the taxes he would be entitled TO
The use and possession of the premises
receipt and the statement or adj
mission of Bernard short time be-
fore his death indicate that the only
payments were on interest 70 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
mand arising out OF the above tran
sactions was presented against the
estate and by her as executrlx was
rejected on August 30. 1898 There
is: testimony indicating that she had
previously recognized the demand by
endeayoring to borrow money for its
payment. On July "a, 1901 the prop
erty was set over to her by decree
of distribution. From judgment de-
creeins the deed to plaintiff to be
orAn
obscure and sale Of the premises 10
satisfy the amount. $173l2o anu
gao costs. found due to plaintiff,
she appeals.
The well settled doctrine that
deed executed merely for the purpose
of securing a debt will be construed
az a mortgage is not assailed, but Tor
appellant it is contended that as sui
was not brought until April, l9o4'
more than six years after the las'
loan and the giving OF the last oonu
on February s. 1896. and more 'han
tour wears after the time, January l.
,ooo txed tor conveyance there
under conditioned on payment, the
action is barred by the statute o.
Limitations 1t is said th;l'
tv executing a written release oil the
first bond and accepting a ne" one
instead. ct the time he borrowed
the last amount. $500, Bernard do
not sign any writing agreeing no
nav or acknowledging a debt. and
that therefore the obligation to pay
on his part was merely verbal anC
would be barred in four years. We
do not so view that transaction Mos
instrument in daily use. such as deeds
mortgages, notes, orders, drafts an:
checks are signed by only one of tht
parties, but are not for that reason
verbal nor half verbal. Although Der
nard executed no note or Wrltin
agreeing to pay any money, he signe'
a deed absolute in terms conveying
the property to plaintiff, and by thl
suit and the decree nc more IS sOugh
than he under his signature obligate
himself to yield. In equity the e.
tension of the time for reconVe!
ance by plaintiff, given by the SUI
render of the first bond and the e.
ecution of a new one ought to 0
considered as effective as if plain
if had conveyed the property to Be
nard and taken new deed from hin