The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-18
Decision

laaned $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
executed to him a bond for a deed
whereby he agreed to re-convey the
property on or before February Is,
1893, 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 5000 and accepted as security for
$1,000. anu interest a deed made
60 plaintiH al 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
upon plaintiff executed to Bernard
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 Januarv /, 1900 and also
$50 annually, and further provisioned
and the taxes he would be 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
Sth. 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 %. 1888. There
is testimony indicating that she had
previously recognized the demand by
endeayoring to borrow money for us
nayment. 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, $1131,2o and
s7e 40 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 a mortgage IS not assailed, but for
appellant it is contended that as suit
was not brought until April. l9o4'
more than six years after the las'
loan and the giving OF. the last oono
on February s. 1896. and more thar
four years after the time. January
7.oo fved tor a conveyance there
under conditioned on payment, the
action is barred by the statute o
limitations 1t IS SAD thi
by executing a written release of thu
first bond and accepting a new ont
instead, at the time he borrowe
the last amount. $500, Bernard dit
not sign any writing agreeing tic
pay or acknowledge a debt, AM
that therefore the obligation to pa
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 th
parties, 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 obliSate
himself to yield. In equity the e
ten, of the time for a recOnve
am by plaintiff, given by the su
reucc of the first bond and the e
ecution of a new one Ought to
considered as effective as if plai1
if had conveyed the property to Be
nard and taken new deed from hill