The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-06-12
Oeccion

IN February IS, 1899, the plaintiff
.,aaed 800 to William Bernard, now
secaasel, All 20 s-cure the payment
.:.,..reof he Gaaqad . plaintiff on that
.tsS tae Lands described in the com
1-aia-, aai a. the same time plaintiff
s:.sacIted to him a bond for deed
w5areby he agreed 70 re-convey the
s-cparty on o. be-ore February Is,
-1s2, proyiiai taa- le was paid on or
easc-e that da-e 500, and also SIS
s1r-a,ly. On February s, 1896 plant
II naned Bar1a-t ne additional! sum
- $500 ard accepted as security for
szrI4. ana interes, a deed made
>, sf.ainttf a. the me the 800 was
s1r-arad, and by release made in
ap-1-1ns acknow.eds ID and recorded,
5-rnard then relieved him from all
-ns,sarlons resulting from the bond
rs-a February IS, 1898, and there
TIM plaintiff executed to Bernard a
e.. bond, dated February 8, 1895.
1.aduio1ed that plaintiff would make
70. deliver good and sufficient con
-svancs of the property to Bernard.
-,Tidad plaintiff vas paid $1,000 on
- before January /, 1900 and also
x.l Annually, and further provisioned
snat II Bernard paid these amounts
Ell the taxes he would be entitled to
Ie uss and possession of the premises
q -r-aipt and the statement or ad-
w9<sIan Of Bernard a short time be-
fn1s- his death indicate that the only
yysy urents we're on interest to the
III dav of February 1897. Pe died
"a following year and letters test
.xz1cnrxrv we're issued to his widow
III HarrIet Bernard who has since
carried 9. J. O.th. Plaintiffs de-
r4rd. arising out Of the above tran
scE,onss was lesented against the
sEa.e and by ter as executrix was
tiered on August %. 1898. There
"a testimony indicating that she had
exinusly recognized the demand by
erneaypriux to borrow money Tor lts
.,avmeut- On July "a, 1901 the prop
9f Eas set over to her by decree
ar dis, butior From judgment de
-eeing the deed 10 plaintiff to be
q mortgage and ordering fore
aoeare and sale of the premises tt
satisfy the amount. $1731.25 ane
Es.4e costs. found due to plaintiff
aae appeals.
Tta well settled doctrine that
jaed executed merely for the purpos'
or securing q debt will be construed
as a mortgage IS net assailed, but 10
appellant it is contended that as sui
1as not brought until April. 1904
MIRA than six years after the las
..t.r. and the giving OF the last bon
M February s, ;Hsb. and more ina
e,-r vears after the time, January
F.teo hxed ter conveyance ehei'
1naer conditioned on payment, tn
action IS barred by the statute
nustafiuns. 1t is said tha
81 executing a written release of tn
arst bond and accepting a new on
yastsad, at the tine he borrowe
aae last amount. $500, Bernard 81
III sign any writtcg agreeing t
pay or acknowledg ng a debt. an
anas therefore the obligation to pa
0a MS part was merely verbal al
Bauld be barred in four years. "
40 not SO view that transaction. Mo
tl51rument in daily use, such as dee:
martgages, notes. orders, drafts al
eaecxs are signed by only one OF Il
parties, but are not for that reas,
verbal nor halt verbal. Although b
xanl executed no note or writ,l
agreeing to pay any money. he sign
= 1eed absolute in terms conveyi
ne property to plaintiff, and by Il
sbtt and the decree no more 10 sous
en3 he under his signature obligat
nAse2 to yield. In equity the ,
tensi'.3 Of the time for . reconv,
1s: " plaintiff, given by the q
1oG6e. Of the -1irst bond and the
oe6f5su Of q new one oIght to