The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-06-04
Decision

On February IS, 1893, the plaintiff
loaned $500 to William Bernard. now
deceased, and to secure the payment
thereof he decided to plaintiff on that
day the lands described IN the COM
plant, and at the same time plaintiff
executed to him bond for a deed
whereby he agreed to re-convey the
srcperty on or before February is,
1898, provided that he was paid on or
before that date $3.50, and also Sob
annually. On February 8, 1896 plant
if loaned Bernard the additional sum
OF 5000 ana accepted as security Tor
$1,000. anu interest a deed made
IA n,aintiff 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 TO Bernard d
new bond, dated February g.. 1895
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 I, 1900 and also
SO 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
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
9th. day of February 1897. He died
the following year and letters test
amentary were issued to his WHO"
Mrs. Harriet Bernard who has since
married c. J. Orth. Plaintiffs de-
Nand 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 mad
previously recognized the demand ov
endeavoring to borrow money for us
navment. On July "a, 1901 the prop
erty was set over to her by decree
of distribution From judgment de-
creeing the deed to plaintiff to be
mortgage and ordering a fore
obscure and sale of the premises to
satisfy the amount, $l13l.2o and
s764O costs. found due to plalntlh'
she appeals.
The we'll settled doctrine that a
deed executed merely for the purpose
of securing a debt will be construed
as a mortgage IS not assailed, but FOL
appellant it is contended that as sui
was not brought until April, l9oi
more than six years after the las
loan and the giving OF the last DOM
on February s. 1896. and more 'ha'
four years after the time' January
1900 fixed for a conveyance 'iie' I
under conditioned on payment, tht
action is barred by the statute
limitations. 1t Is sad 'h''
bv executing written release of tn
first bond and accepting a new on
instead, at the time he borrowe
the last amount. 5000, Bernard di
not sign any writing agreeing tic
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
partaes,but are not for that reaso
verbal NOR half verbal. Although Be
nard executed no note or writin
agreeing to pay any money, he signe
q deed absolute in terms conveyin
the property to plaintiff, and by tn
suit and the decree no more Is sougl
than he under his signature obligate
himself to yield. In equity the e
tens" i of the time for . reconve
anc: Dy plaintiff, given by the 81
rende. of the first bond and the e
ecution Of q new one Ought to