The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-25
Decision

On February Is, 1893, the plaintiff
loaned $4O0 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 plaintiff
executed to him bond for a deed
whereby he agreed to re-convey the
property on or before February Is,
1888, provided that he was paid on or
before that date $500, and also $50
annually. On February 8, 1896 plaint-
if loaned Bernard the additional sum
of 5000 and accepted as security Tor
$1,000. ana interest a deed made
20 plaintiff at the time 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, 1893, and there
upon plaintiff executed to Bernard a
new bond, dated February 8, 1895,
conditioned that plaintiff would make
AMI 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
$50 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 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. ]. Ortiz. Plaintiffs de-
mand arising out. of the above tran
sactions was presented against the
estate and by her as executrix was
rejected on August %. 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-.
creeing the deed to plaintiff to be
a mortgage and ordering fore
obscure and sale Of the premises to
satisfy the amount. $1731.25 and
S76.4O costs. found due to plaintiff,
she appeals.
The well settled doctrine that a
deed executed merely for the purpose
of securing a debt will be construed
as a mortgage IS not assailed, but for
appellant it is commended that as suit
was not brought until April, 1904,
more than six years after the last
loan and the giving Of the last bono
on February 5. 1896. and more tha-
four wears after the time. January l
1900 fixed tor a conveyance thefe
under conditioned on payment, the
action is barred by the statute o
limitations. 1t is said tina
by executing a N.t.c- release of tn
first bond and accepting a new on
instead, at the time he borrowe
the last amount. $500, Bernard di
not sign any writing agreeing tt
pay or acknowledging a debt, an
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. Mo;
instrument in daily use, such as deco
mortgages, notes, orders, drafts an
checks are signed by only one OF tt
partses.but are not for that reasC
verbal nor half verbal. Although Be
nard executed no note or writi1
agreeing to pay any money, he signt
a deed absolute in terms conveyil
the property to plaintiff. and by tn
suit and the decree no more Is soug
than he under his signature obligat
himself to yield. In equity the {
tens / of the time for q reconve
anr' Dy plaintiff, given by the 81
re:a:e. Of the first. bond and the I
ecution of q new one oIsnt to
considered ~ effective rs II plat
III had conveyed the property to B
nard AID taken new deed from hi