The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-06-09
Decision

On February IS, 1898, the plaintiff
10 nad 500 to William Bernard, now
de aased, and to secure the payment
Hereof he decided to plaintiff on that
Gay the lands described in the COM
plant, and al the same time plaintiff
executed to him bond for a 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 S36
annually. On February 5, 1895 plant
if loaned Bernard the additional sum
O. 5000 and accepted as security Tor
$1,000. anu interest deed made
70 plaintift 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, 1893, and there
new bond, dated February 8. 1896.
conditioned that plaintiff would make
~ 4eliver a good and sufficient con
yeyance Of the property TO Bernard,
provided Plaintiff was paid $1,000 on
o. before January !, 1900 and also
$50 annually, and further provisioned
taar if Bernard paid these amounts
and the taxes he would be entitled TO
the use and possession of the premises
4 receipt and the statement or ad-
mission of Bernard short time be
fore his death indicate that the only
payments were 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 who has s.nce
married c. J. Ovth. Plaintiff de-
mand arising QUO OF the above tran
sactions was pr esented against the
estate and by her as eXecutrlX was
rejected on August 80. 1898. There
:. -; ',nony indicating that she had
-te.....-.y recognized the demand by
ayCriug to borrow money for It's
payment. On July "a, 1901 the prop
erty was set over to her by decree
Of +yI From, q ind
creeing the deed to plaintiff to be
a mortgage and ordering lore
obscure and sale of the premises to
satisfy the amount, $l.5l.2o and
s,G.4O costs. found due to plaintiff
SIC appeals.
The we'll settled doctrine that a
deed executed merely for the purpose
Of securing a debt will be construed
as mortgage IS not assailed, but foI
appellant it is commended that as suit
was not brought until April, 1904
more Than six .'ears after the laSl
loan aud the -:v,ag of the est bono
ca February 3. -"'"' anu Aloi 'ti''
f,ur wears after the time, January /
1900 fixed tor CONVEYANCE .here
under conditioned on payment, the
actig. : barred by the statute OF
limitations 1t is SAID tha'
by executing written release Of TIE
first bond and accepting a new che
instead, at the time he porrUwel
the last amount. 5000, Bernard I'D
not sign any writing agreeing 70
pay or acknowledging a debt, AID
that therefore the obligation to pa,
on his part was merely verbal ant
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
parties, but are not for that reason
verbal nor half verbal. Although Be,
nard executed no note or writ!n
agreeing to pay any money. he signe
e deed absolute in terms convey1n
the property to plalntlff, and by thi
suit and the decree no more is sough
t.a' he under his signature obligate
n.,..seif to yield. In equity the e,
ten,irn of the time for a reconve,
anc;: Dy plaintiff, given by the su
rende of the first bond and the e.