The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-29
Decision

On February IS, 1893, 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 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 $500, and also SIS
annually. On February s, 1896 plant
if loaned Bernard the additional sum
OF $500 and accepted as security for
$1,000. ana interest q deed made
10 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
made February IS, 1898, and there
upon plaintiff executed 20 Bernard a
new bond, dated February 8, 1896,
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
SEQ annually, and further provisioned
that if Bernard paid these amounts
and the taxes he would lie entitled to
the use and possession Of the premises
A receipt and the statement or ad-
mission of Bernard a short time be-
fore his death indicate that the only
payments were on interest to the
9Th. day of February 1897. He died
the following year and letters test
amentary were issued to his widow
Mrs Harriet Bernard who 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 90. 1898. There
is testimony indicating that she had
previously recognized the demand by
endeayoring to borrow money for its
payment. On July "a, 1901 the prop
erty was set over to her by decree
of distribution. From judgment de-
creeing the deed to plaintiff to be
a mortgage and ordering fore
obscure and sale Of the premises to
satisfy the amount. $1731.25 and
S76.4O costs. found due to plaintih,
she appeals.
The we'll settled doctrine that a
deed executed merely for the purpose
of securing a debt will be construed
as a mortgage is not assailed, but for
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 bona
On February 8, 1896. and more than
four years after the time, January l.
1900 fixed tor conveyance theie-
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 a new one
instead, at the time he borrowed
the last amount, 5000. Bernard did
not sign any writing agreeing ito
pay or acknowledg a debt, and
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
partses,but are not for that reaso
verbal nor half verbal. Although Be-
nard executed no note or writin
agreeing to pay any money, he signe
deed absolute in terms conveyin
the property to plaintiff, and by tn
suit and the decree no more is sougl
than he under his signature obligate
himself to yield. In equity the e
I ten,i :, of the time for q Eeconve
+ anr: by plaintiff, given by the su
Z re3!c of the first bond and the e
ecution of a new one oLaht to
considered as effective as If plair
If had conveyed the property to b
nard and taken new deed from hi