The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-12
Decision

On February Is, 1898, the plaintiff
Ioened $500 to Wilam Bernard, now
deceased, and to secure the payment
thereof he decided to plaintiff on that
day the lands described in the COM
plant, and az the same time plaintiff
executed to him a 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 Si00, and also SIS
annually. On February s, 1896 plant
III loaned Bernard the additional sum
OF $500 and accepted as security for
$1,000 ard interest deed made
% plaintiff 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
nSlae February IS, 1898, and there
upon plaintiff executed to Bernard a
new bond, dated February s, 1896,
conditioned that plaintiff would make
and deliver good and sufficient con
veyance of the property to Bernard,
provided Plaintiff was paid $1,000 on
or before January l, 1900 and also
$50 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
\ receipt and the statement or ad-
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 ard letters test
amentary were issued to his widow
Mrs. Harriet Bernard who has s.nce
married c. J. Orth. PlaintlfIs de-
mand arising out OF the above tran
sactions was presented against the
estate and by her as eXecutrlX was
rejected Oh August 90. 1898. There
is testimony indicating that she had
previously recognized the demand by
endeayoring to borrow money for its
payment. On July 81, 1901 the prop
erty was set over to her by decree
of distribution From a judgment de-
creeing the deed to plaintH 10 pe
mortgage and ordering a lore
obscure and sale of the premises W
satisfy the amount, sl.31.2o anu
sc 40 costs. found due to plalntlll'
she appeals.
The well settled doctrine that a
deed executed merely for the purpose
of securing a debt will be construed
as a mortgage rs not assailed, but 1oi
appeIlant il is contended that as SUI
was not brought until April, l9o4
more than six years after the ld9'
loan and the giving Of the last DOM
on February S, 1896. and more tha-
four years after the time, Jahuar!
,oon 6ved tor a conveyance there
under conditioned on payment. ths
action is barred by the statute o
limitations. 1t is said ina
by executing a written release OF th'
first bond and accepting new one
instead at the time he borrowed
the last amount. $500. Bernard die
not sign any writing agreeing ITO
nav or acknowledging a debt, ant
that therefore the obligation to pay
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,
parties but are not for that reason
verbal nor half verbal Although Der
nard executed no note or writin
agreeing to pay any money, he signe'
a deed absolute in terms conveying
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 e,
tension of the time for reconvey
ance by plaintiff, given by the SUI
render of the first bond and the e,
ecutiOn of new one ought to b
considered as effective as if plain
iff had conveyed the property to Be-
nard and taken new deed from hin