The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-05-11
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
day the lands described in the COM
piant, and a. the same time plaintiff
executed to him a bond for a deed
Whereby he agreed TO re-convey the
property on or before February Is,
1898, provided that he was paid on or
before that date $500, and also S35
annually. On February S, 1896 plant
rf loaned Bernard the additional sum
OF $500 and accepted as security for
$1,000. ana interest a deed made
10 nlaintitf 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, 1898, and there
sron plaintiff executed 10 Bernard a
new bond, dated February 8, 1896,
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 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 We're on interest to the
Sth day Of February 1897. He died
the folio wing year and letters test
amentary were issued to his widow
Mrs Harriet Bernard who has s-nce
married C. j. Orth. Plaintiff de-
mand arising out OF the above tram
sactions was presented against the
estate and by her as eNecutrlx was
rejected on August 80. 1898. There
is testimony indicating that she had
previously recognized the demand by
endeayorine to borrow money for its
pavment. On July "a, 1901 the prop
erty was set over to her by decree
creeing the deed to plalnttf 10 De
mortgage and ordering fore
obscure and sale of the premises to
satisfy the amount. sl13l2o anu
s76 40 costs. found due to pialntll
she appeals.
The well settled doctrine that
deed executed merely for the purpose
of securing a debt will be construed
as 2 mortgage rs not assailed, but 1ol
appellant it is contended that as SUI
was not brought until April, l9o4
more than six years after the las
loan and the giving OF the last DOM
on February s, 1896, and more .ia'
fonr wears after the time. January
1900 fixed tor conveyance ''-'7-
under conditioned on payment, Tn
action is barred by the statute o
limitations. 1t is SAID ui''
by executing a written release OF IN
frs+ hond and accepting a new Oh
instead. ct the time he borrowe
the last amount. 5000, Bernard CT
not sign any writing agreeing tt
nav or acknowled g,ng a debt, an
that therefore the obligation to pa
on his part was merely verbal all
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 th
parties, 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
a deed absolute in terms conveyin
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 e
tension of the time for reconve
ance bv plaintiff given by the su
render of the first bond and the e
ecution of a new one ought to
considered as effective as II plan
if had conveyed the property to Be
nard and taken new deed from hill