The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-17
Decision

l.
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
Biaint, and at the same time plaintiff
executed to him a bond for deed
whereby he agreed to recOnvey the
property on or before February Is,
1898, provided that he was paid on OF
before that date 800, and also SIS
annually. On February S, 1895 paint
If loaned Bernard the additional sum
Of 5000 and accepted as security Tor
$1,000, ana interest a deed made
"a nIaintin at the tine 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 to Bernard
new bond, dated February S, 1885,
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 taves 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 s-nce
married c. j. Orth. Plaintiffs de-
mand arising out Of the above tran
sactiOns was presented against the
estate and by her as eNecutriX was
rejected on August 90. 1898. There
Is testimony indicating that she had
previously recognized the demand by
erdnayCring to borrow money Tor It's
nayr7ent On July "a, 1901 the prop
cry was set over to her by decree
of distribution From 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, Sl131.25 and
$500 cos-s. found due to plaintiff,
she appeals.
The well settled doctrine that
deed executed merely for the purpose
Of securing a debt will be construed
as a mortgage rs not asSailed but for
appellant it is contended that as suit
was not brought until April, 1904,
,nore than six years after the laS1
loan and the giving of the last bona
on February s, 1896. and more IMAM
four wears after the time, Januar! J.
1900 fixed TOR a conveyance 'he'e-
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, ct the time he borrowed
the last amount. 5000, Bernard did
not sign any writing agreeing to
pay or acknowledge a debt, and
that therefore the obligation to pay
On his part was merely verbal and
would be barred in four years. We
co not SO view that transaction. Most
instrument in daily use, such as deeds
mortgages, notes, orders, drafts an,
checks are signed by only one OF the
part'es,b are not for that reason
verbal nor half verbal. Although Der
nard executed no note or writins
agreeing to pay any money, he signet
deed absolute in terms conveyin;
the property to plaintiff, and by thi
suit and the decree no more is sOugh
than he under his signature obligatet
himself to yield. In equity the eS
ten - i of the time for a recOnvey
ar by plaintiff, given by the SUI
re:..:c of the first bond and the es
ecution of a new one oLelt to b
considered as effective as if plain1
If had conveyed the property to Bel
nard and taken new deed from hin