The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-06-07
Decision

On February IS, 1893, the plaintiff
loaned $500 to William Bernard, now
deceased, and to secure the payment
thereof he decided to plaintiff on that
Gay the lands described in the COM
executed to him a bond for a deed
whereby he agreed 10 re-convey the
property on or before February Is,
1898, provided that he was paid on or
before that date S4O0, and also $50
annually. On February 8, 1896 plant
If leaned Bernard the additional sum
OF 5000 and accepted as security for
$1,000, ana interest a deed made
~ rIaintifr al the time the s40o 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, 1893, 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
veyance of the property 10 Bernard,
provided Plaintiff was paid $1,000 on
or before January l, 1900 and also
$50 annually, and further proyisioned
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
amentary were issued to his widow
Mrs. Harriet Bernard who has since
married c. j. Octh. Plaintiffs de-
rand arising QUIZ of the above tran
sactions was pl esented 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 pv
endeayoring to borrow money TOT us
Davment. On July "a, 1901 the prop
erty 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, $l73125 and
$500 costs. found due to plaintiff
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 10Y
appellant it is contended that as sui
was not brought until April, 19o4
more than six years after the las
loan and the giving OF the last pone
nm Eebr, ary 8. 1896, and more tina!
four wears after the time, January
19oo fixed tor conveyance theie
under conditioned on payment, the
action is barred by the statute Q
limitations. 1t is said ina
by executing a written release Of Thu
first bond and accepting new on
INSTEAD, at the time he borrowet
the last amount. $500, Bernard dit
not sign any writing agreeing tic
pay or acknowledging debt, ant
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 deed
mortgages, notes, orders, drafts an
checks are signed by only one of tn
partses.but are not for that reaso
verbal nor half verbal. Although Be
nard executed no note or writin
agreeing to pay any money, he signe
q deed absolute in terms conveyiu
the property to plaintiff, and by tn
suit and the decree no more IS sougl
than he under his signature obligate
himself to yield. In equity the g
tensi 4 of the time for a reconve
anc': ny plaintiff, given by the su
rence of the first bond and the e
ecution of a new one ousnt to
considered an effective "a IF snIajr