The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-15
Decision

On February IS, 1898, the plaintiff
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
plant, and at the same time plaintiff
executed to him bond for a deed
whereby he agreed to re-convey the
Drcperty on or before February Is.
1898, provided that he was paid on or
before that date 500, and also $50
annually. On February s, 1896 plant
III loaned Bernard the additional sum
Of 5000 and accepted as security for
$1,000. ana interest deed made
to plaintiff at the time the s4oo 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 to Bernard
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 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
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
amentarv were issued to his widow
Mrs. Harriet Bernard who has snce
married c. J. Orth. Plaintiff de-
mand arising out Of the above tran
sactions was presented against the
estate and by her as executrlx was
rejected on August 80. 1898. There
is testimony indicating that she had
previously recognized the demand by
endeavoring to borrow money Tor us
navmeut. On July "a, 1901 the prop
erty was set over to her by decree
of distribution. From a judgment de-
creeing the deed to plaintiff to be
. mortgage and ordering lore
obscure and sale of the premises u
satisfv the amount. s173i.25 and
s7s 40 costs. found due to plaintin
she appeals.
The we'll settled doctrine that
deed executed merely for the purpose
Of securing debt will be construed
as mortgage is not assailed, but FOL
anpellant it is contended that as SUI
was not brought until April, l9of
more than six years after the las
loan and the giving Of the last POM
on February s. 1896. and more 'ha'
four years after the time Jahuais
1000 fixed tor a conveyance 'he!
under conditioned on payment th'
action is barred by the statute 0
limitations Ii is said ina
nv executing a written release OF IN
first bond and accepting a ne" oii
instead, at the time he borroWe
the last amount. $500. Bernard Ok
not sign any writing agreeing nc
nav or acknowledging a DEBT, an
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 deco
mortgages, notes, orders. drafts an
checks are signed by only one of tn
parties but are not for that reasO
verbal nor half verbal. Although Be-
nard executed no note or writ.n
agreeing to pay any money, he signe
a deed absolute in terms conveyln
the property to plaintiff, and by thi
suit and the decree no more IS sougf
than he under his signature obligate
himself to yield. In equity the e.
te,. IL of the time for a reconVe.
an, py plaintiff, given by the SUI
reese of the first bond and the e.
tculion Of a new one OL5lt to
considered as effective as If plain
if had conveyed the property to Be
uard and taken new deed from hiI