The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-03
Decision

On February Is, 1898, the plant II
loaned 800 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 paint If
executed TO him a bond for a deed
whereby he agreed 70 re-convey the
property on or before February Is,
1898. provided that he was paid on or
before that date 800, and also Sa6
annually. On February s, 1896 paint
iff loaned Bernard the additional sum
of $500 and accepted as security Tor
$1,000. and interest deed maze
Ia nIainttu at the time the S4Oo Vas
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 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 10
the use and possession of the premises
a receipt and the statement or adj
mission Of Bernard a short time be-
fore his death indicate that the only
payments We're on interest TO the
5th. day of February 1897. He died
the following year and letters test
amentary were issued TO his widow
Mrs. Harriet Bernard who has snce
married C. j. Orth. Plaintiff S de-
mand arising out OF the above tran
SdCtlOuS NdS pleoCutIO oS"AA-'H
estate and by her as executrix was
rejected on August 80. 1898. There
is testimony indicating that she had
previously recognized the demand by
endeavoring to borrow money for its
payment. On July "a, 1901 the prop
n hnr HonrnQ
of distribution From a judgment de-
creeing the deed to plaintiff to be
a mortgage and ordering a fore
obscure and sale of the premises to
satisfy the amount, $1131.2o and
$3.50 costs. found due to plalntln,
she appeals.
The well settled doctrine that a
deed executed merely for the purpose
of securing debt will be construed
as a mortgage IS not assailed, but TOT
anpel]ant it is contended that as suit
was not brought until April, l9oi'
more than six years after the last
loan and the giving of the last bona
ON February S. 1896. and more IMAM
fo,,r wears after the time, January l.
,,on txad tor conveyance there
under conditioned on payment. the
action is barred by the statute OF
limitations. 1t is said mat
bv execut ING a written release OF 'he
fret bond and accepting new one
instead, at the time he borrowed
the last amount, 5000, Bernard did
not sign any writing agreeing ITO
paw or acknowledging a debt, and
that therefore the obligation to pay
on his part was merely verbal anG
would be barred in four years. We
do not so view that transaction Most
instrument in daily use, such as deeds
mortgages, notes, orders. drafts am
checks are signed by only one of the
parties but are not for that reason
verbal HUI HdU verbal. Although Der
nard executed no note Or writing
agreeing to pay any money, he signet
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 obligated
himself to yield. In equity the ex
tension of the time for reconVey
ance by plaintiff, given by the sur
render of the first bond and the eH
ecution of new one ought to D.
considered as effective as il plant
iff had conveyed the property to Bel
nard and taken d new deed from him