If an account is a unit, by the mutual dealings of the parties thereto, it is not barred until the last item thereof is barred.1

8 San Antonio, etc., Association v. Stewart, 94 Tex. 441; 86 Am. St. Rep. 864; 65 S. W. 665.

9 California, etc., Society v. Culver, 127 Cal. 107; 59 Pac. 292; Douthitt v. Farrell, 60 Kan. 195; 56 Pac. 9.

10 Moore v. Russell, 133 Cal. 297;

85 Am. St. Rep. 166; 65 Pac. 624.

11 San Antonio, etc., Association v. Stewart, 94 Tex. 441; S6 Am. St. Rep. 864; 65 S. W. 665.

12 Reeves v. Butcher (1891), 2 Q. B. 509; following Hemp v. Garland, 4 Q. B. 519.

13 Westcott v. Whiteside, 63 Kan. 49; 64 Pac. 1032.

1 Carpenter v. Plagge, 192 111.82; 61 N. E. 530; Padden v. Clark, - la. - ; 99 N. W. 152; Rickard v.

If there are, however, two separate and distinct accounts between the same parties, each is barred when the last item is barred; and the later one cannot be added to the earlier one to extend the period of limitations as to the earlier.2 So the fact that the debtor delivers to the creditor an article to be applied on account does not make the account between them a mutual one.3 Agreement between the parties to a mutual account fixing the amount due thereon and making it an account stated is in legal effect a new promise and starts limitations to running anew.4 Carrying ) balance due on an earlier account into a subsequent account by mutual agreement makes it subject to the limitation applicable to the second account.5 Limitations does not run against a continuing contract,6 as one between a sheriff and his deputy,7 or a contract to work for compensation, no time being specified either for payment or for the termination of the contract8 until the end thereof. So breach by a railway company of its contract to keep up a crossing is a continuing breach.9