The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-21
Decision

~S'S'S'
On February IS, 1898, 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 e-convey the
property on or before February Is,
1898. provided that he was paid on CT
before that date $400, and also SIS
annually. On February 8, 1896 plant
nf loaned Bernard the additional sum
OF $500 and accepted as security for
$1,000. ana interest a deed made
% plaintiff at the time the $}oo 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
new bond, dated February 8, 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 /, 1900 and also
q ,oJ1 f-IT-, u Or
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 adj
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
amentary were issued to his widow
Mrs. Harriet Bernard vino 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 %. 1898. There
Is testimony indicating that she had
previously recognized the demand by
endeavorng to borrow money for its
oayment On July a, 1901 the prop
erty was set over to her by decree
of distribution. From a judgment de-
erecting the deed to plaintiff to be
a mortgage and ordering fore
obscure and sale of the premises to
satisfy the amount, $l131.23 and
S76.4O costs. found due to plaintiff,
she appeals.
The well settled doctrine that a
deed executed merely for the purpose
Of securing a debt will be construed
as mortgage IS not assailed, but Tor
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 BOND
On February S, 1896. and more than
four wears after the time. January /.
1860 fixed Tor conveyance thele
under conditioned on payment, the
action is barred by the statute OF
limitations. 1t is said that
by executing a written release of the
first bond and accepting new one
instead, 1T the time he. borrowed
the last amount. $500, Bernard did
not sign any writing agreeing to
pay or acknowledging a debt, and
that therefore the obligation to pa,
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 tn,
partses.b but are not for that reaso;
verbal nor half verbal. Although Der
nard executed no note or writin;
agreeing to pay any money, he signe,
a deed absolute in terms conveyin
the property to plaintiff, and by thi
suit and the decree no more is sough
than he under, his signature obligate
himself to yield. In equity the e1
ten,'' 1 of the time for a reconvey
am ny plaintiff, given by the sui
renee of the first bond and the e,
ecution of a new one Ought to b
considered as effective as if plain
III had conveyed the property to Be-
nard and taken new deed from hin