The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-07
Decision

On February Is, 1898, the plaintiff
loaned $4OO to William Bernard. now
deceased, and to secure the payment
thereof he decided to plaintiff on That .
iay the lands described in the COM
plant, and at the same time plaintiff
executed 10 him bond for deed
whereby he agreed to re- convey the
property on or before February Is,
1898. provided that he was paid on or
Before that date 800, and also S35
annually On February s, 1896 plant
"f loaned Bernard the additional sum
81 5000 and accepted as security Tor
5000 ana interest a deed MADE
% plaintlu at the time the Sioo was
borrowed, and by release made in
writing acknowledged and recorded,
Bernard then relieved him from all
Obligations resulting from the bond
Ga3e February Is, 1899, and there
upon plaintiff executed to Bernard
new bond, dated February s. 1895,
conditioned that plaintiff would make
sn4 deliver a good and sufficient con
Feyance Of the property TO Bernard,
gro. ided Plaintiff was paid $1,000 on
or before January /. 1900 and also
So annually, and further pTOyisiOned
that if Bernard paid these amounts
and the taxes he would be entitled u
tE5 5se and possession Of the premises
"a receipt and the statement or ad-
MISSION of Bernard a short time be-
tore his death indicate that the only
payments We're on interest to the
tth day of February 1897. He died
:ht following year and letters test
ancentary were issued TO his W.dO"
Mrs. Harriet Bernard who has snce
married C. j. Orch. Plaintiff : a.
Tand arising out OF the above tran
sactions was presented against the
estate and by her as eXecutrlN was
rejected on August 30. 1898. There
is testimony indicating that she had
previously recognized the demand b.
eLGeavGring to borrow money for Its
payment. On July y, 1901 the prop
artv was set over to her by decree
of distribution. From a Judgment de-
erecting the deed to plaintiff to be
q mortgage and ordering tore
obscure and sale OF the premises TO
satisfy the amount. s1isl.2o anu
s7G.40 costs. found due to plaintiff
she appeals.
The well settled doctrine that a
deed executed merely for the purpose
OF securing a uebt will be construed
as mortgage rs not assalled, but TOT
appellant it is contended that as suit
was not brought until April, ls'i'
more than six years after the laSt
loan and the giving OF the last BOND
an February s, 1886. and more than
ronr wears after the time, January l.
,an. ayed TOR q conveyance there
under conditioned or payment, the
action is barred by the statute OF
lfrjtations. Ii is said thai
bv executing a written release OF the
frs, bond and accepting a ne" ohe
instead, at the time he borroWe1
the last amount. $500. Bernard die
moi sign any writing agreeing to
nav or acknowledging a debt, and
that therefore the obligation to pa!
on his part was merely verbal ant
would be barred in four years "
do not so view that transaction. Mos
instrument in daily use, such as deco:
mortgages, notes, orders, drafts an,
checks are signed by only one Of tn
parties, but are not for that reason
verbal nor half verbal. Although Be,
nard executed no note or writin
agreeing to pay any money, he signe
uocu "p9oio t0 ~ - i
the property to plaintiff, and by tn
suit and the decree no more IS sough
than he under his signature obliSate
nlms,,l TO yield. In equity the e.
tension of the time for a reconye.
ance by plaintiff, given by the su
render of the first bond and the e!
ecutiOn of a new one ought to b
considered as effective as If plain
if had conveyed the property to Be
nard and taken :. new deed from hin