The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-06-08
Decision

On February IS, 1899. the plaintiff
loaned $500 to William Bernard, now
q ceased, and 70 secure he payment
thereof he decided 10 plaintiff On that
DAY tie lands described IN the com
plant, and at the same time plaintiff
executed to him q bond for a deed
whereby ne agreed to re-convey the
property on or before February Is,
1898. provided that he vas paid on or
before that date 500, and also SIS
annually. On February s, 1895 plant
if loaned Bernard the additional sum
@. $500 and accepted as security for
$1,000, ana interest a deed made
- n}ainrin al the tine the $500 was
borrowed, and by release made in
writing acknowledged and recorded,
Bernard then relieved him from al
Obligations resulting from the bond
made February IS, 1898, and there
upon plaintiff executed TO Bernard a
naw bond, dated February s. 1895,
conditioned that plaintiff would make
/. 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
SO 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 short time be-
FIRE his death indicate that the only
payments were on interest to the
S-n. day of February 1897. He died
the following year and letters test
amentary were issued to his ~ldo"
Mrs. Harriet Bernard who has s.nce
married c. J. O7th. Pla.ntlIs de-
r,ard arising QUE of the above tran
sactions was pl esented against the
estate and by her as executrix was
rejected on August 80. 1898. There
ia testimony indicating that she haa
pre-: ou.ly recognized the demand os
endeavoring to borrow money LOT l's
nayment. On July "a, 1901 the prop
srty was set over to her by decree
of distribution. From judgment de
erecting the deed to plaintiff to be
a mortgage and ordering a lore
obscure and sale of the premises u
satisfy the amount. $1731.25 AM
s76.4O costs. found due to pialn1in
she appeals.
The well settled doctrine that
deed executed merely for the purpos
of securing a debt vii, be construe
as a mortgage IS not assailed, but 10
appellant it is commended that as SUI
was not brought until April, l9o-
more than six years after the las
an and the giving OF the last ooh
&. February 3. 1896. and more tina
f5r- years after the time, January
7e,t 1xed tor a conveyance ther
uluar conditioned on payment, III
-c-ica s barred by the statute
,---i+a.iors 1t is said tn;
bv execut .ng a written release OF Il
first bond nd accepting a new or
instead, al he time he borroWe
the last an INT. $500, Bernard a.
not sign any writing agreeing t
pay or acknowie dging a debt, az
that therefore the obligation to p;
on his part was merely verbal al
would be barred in four years. "
do not so view that transaction. Mo
instrument in daily use, such as dee
mortgages notes. orders, drafts al
checks are signed by only one OF {
part:es.but are not for that reas,
verbal nor half verbal. Although B,
nard executed no note or writi
agreeing to pay any money. he sign
deed absolute in terms convey
the property to pla.ntlff, and ,.y I,
suit and the decree NO more Is sou.
tH"r he under his signature obhgat
d. n:.,eif to yield. In equity the
te'.'' Of the time for a reconv,
anc' Dy plaintiff, given by the s
rea:e Of the first bond and the
ecItion of . new one orslt to
considered as effective as il plat