The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-04
Decision

loaned $500 to William Bernard, now
deceased. and 10 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 a bond for a deed
whereby he agreed to reconvey the
1898, provided that he was paid on or
before that date $500, and also S36
annually On February s, 1895 plant
If loaned Bernard the additional sum
Of $500 and accepted as secur'ty lof
$1,000. ana interest deed mace
10 plaintin at the time the S4V0 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. 1896,
conditioned that plaintiff would make
and deliver a good and sufficient con
yeyance of the property to Bernard,
provided Plaintiff was paid Sloo6 on
Or before January !, 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
Sth. day OF February 1897. He died
the following year and letters test
amentary We're issued to his widow
Mrs. Harriet Bernard who has snce
married C.. j. Orth. Plaintiff 5 de-
mand arising out of the above tran
:actions was presented against the
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
erty was set over to her by decree
of distribution. From a judgment de-
freeing the deed to plaintiff to be
a mortgage and ordering fore
obscure and sale of the premises to
satisfy the amount. $ls31.2o anu
s7s.4O costs. found due to plaintif1,
she appeals.
The we'll settled doctrine that
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 last
loan and the giving OF the last pohu
ON February S, 1886, and more IMAM
four wears after the time, January l.
1900 nXet LOT d tolA'
under conditioned on payment, the
action is barred by the statute OIL
limitations 1t is sald 'n''
by executing a written release OF the
FIRST bond and accepting new one
instead at the time he borrowed
the last amount. $500. Bernard did
not sign any writing agreeing ITO
pay or acknowledging debt, and
that therefore the obligation to pay
on his part was merely verbal and
would be barred in four years. we
do not so view that transaction. MOST
instrument in daily use, such as deets
mortgages, notes, orders, drafts am
checks are signed by only one of The
parties but are not for that reason
verbal nor half verbal. Although Der
nard executed no note or WRITING
agreeing to pay any money, he signet
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 eA
ecution of a new one ought to b
considered as effective as ii plaln'
if had conveyed the property to Bel
nard and taken d new deed from hin