The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-10
Decision

On February Is, 1893. the plaintiff
laaned $400 to William Bernard, now
deceased, and 20 secure The payment
thereof he deeIed to plaintiff on that
day the lands lie cr.bed in the COM
paint, and at the same time plaint.ff
executed to him a bond for a deed
whereby he agreed 10 re-cOnvey the
ucperty on or bcfere February Is,
1898, provided that he was paid on OR .
before that date $500, and also $50
annually. On February 8, 1896 plant
iii leaned Bernard the additional sum
81 $500 and accepted as security Tor
$1,000, anu interest deed maze
90 nIaiptiu at tie tine the S4oo was
1Orluved and by release made in
writing acknowledge and recorded,
pernard then relieved him from all
obligations resu!tiI@ from the bond
made February Is, 1893, and there
upcn plaintiff eXecu. Ell to Bernard
new bond, dated February s. 1896.
conditioned that plaintiff would make
AID deliver a sood and sufficient con
veyance of the prop erty to Bernard,
provided Plaint6 was paid $1,000 on
or before January !, 1900 and also
$50 annually, and further provisioned
that if Bernard pa.3 these amounts
and the taxes he T1ui be entitled TO
the use and possession CT the premises
4 receipt and the s,atement or ad'
mission Of Bernard a snort TIME ne
tore his death ind.ca' hat the only
payments We're on interest to the
Sth. day of February 1897. He died
the following year ana letters test
eLneGtary were Issued o his widow
Mrs. Harriet Bernard Who has s.nce
married c. j. Or!i Plaintiffs de-
mand arising out of tie above tran
sactions was presented against the
estate and by her as executrlx was
rejected or August 20 1898. There
is testimony indicating hat she had
previously recognized tie demand Oy
eudeavCring to borrow money for Its
payment On July u, 1901 the prop
erty was set over to her by decree
of distribution. From a judgment De
erecting the deed to plalnt.n TO De
a mortgage and. ordering a 1oIe
obscure and sale Of the premises :,
satisfy the amount, sl'Sl.zo an'
x-e4o costs. found de to plaintiff
she appeals.
The we'll settled doctrine that q
deed executed merely fer The purpose
of securing a debt viii ln construed
as a mortgage IS not assalled, Dut 1ol
annellant it is contendc- mat as SUI
was not brought unit; April, lSo4
mora than six Gears after the las
loan and the giving Of the last poh'
or February s. 1896, and more thal
.o,,r vears after the time. January
1900 fixed tor a cCAEe.' ite INV
under conditioned en- payment, TN
scriop * barred by the statute Q
limitations Il is id Una
hv executing written ra4ease OF III
fr.t hond and accepting new on
instead. at the time he borrowe
the last amount. $500, : rnard Oh
not sign any writing aG@eetng u
nav or acknowledging a tebt, an
that therefore the obl.gat.r n to pa
on his part was merely 1rbal an
would be barred in four vars. "
do not SO view that transac N. Mos
Instrument in daily use, such as deco
mortgages, notes, orders, CTafts an
checks are signed b. Only che Of tt
parties but are MT fer that reasC
verbal nor half verbal. A.tLough Be
hard executed no note CT Wrltlr
agreeing to pay any money, re slSne
a. deed absolute in terms ronveyl1
the property to plaintiff, and by tn
suit and the decree no mere 5 soug
than he under his signatgra bligat'
himself TO yield In equity the e
tension OF the time for r2conve
ance by plaintiff. given b. he ST
render of the first bond ana the e
ecution of a new enc CUgG. to
considered as effective as il plail
iff had conveyed the property 20 Bt
uard and taken new deed fr' n hi