No relations of trust and confidence exist between debtor and creditor as such. Hence omission by a debtor whose debt was payable when a specified claim is collected, to disclose the fact that such claim was collected,1 or the denial by a debtor bank of liability upon a lost certificate of deposit,2 are none of them such fraud as to prevent the running of the statute of limitations. So omission of a debtor bank to disclose to the representatives of a depositor the existence of the deposit is not such fraud as to charge the bank with interest.3 It has been held that where payee sent a note for collection to an attorney who had personally assumed it, omission by such attorney to disclose his liability was held not fraud.4

12Conant v. Riseborough, 139 111. 383, 28 N. E. 789; Burton v. Perry, 146 111. 71, 34 N. E. 60; Cassem v. Heustis, 201 111. 208, 94 Am. St. Rep. 160, 66 N. E. 283.

13California. Bradbury v. Davenport, 114 Cal. 593, 55 Am. St. Rep. 92, 46 Pac. 1062; Bradbury v. Davenport, 120 Cal. 152, 52 Pac. 301.

Illinois. Seymour v. Mackay, 126 111; 341, 18 N. E. 552.

Massachusetts. Trull v. Skinner, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 213.

Michigan. Shouler v. Bonander, 80 Mich. 531, 45 N. W. 487.

Minnesota. De Lancey v. Finnegan, 86 Minn. 255, 90 N. W. 387.

New Jersey. Youle v. Richards, 1 N. J. Eq: 534, 23 Am. Dec. 722.

South Carolina. Hall v. Hall, 41 S. Car. 168, 44 Am. St. Rep. 696, 19 S. E. 307.

Vermont. Hyndman v. Hyndman, 19 Vt. 9, 46 Am. Dec 171.

14Goree v. Clements, 94 Ala. 337, 10 So. 906; Cramer v. Wilson, 202 111. 83, 66 X. E. 869; apparently contra, Hall v. Hall, 41 S. Car. 163, 44 Am. St. Rep. 696, 19 S. E. 305. (In this case, however, there were other circumstances of oppression, the mortgagors being old and feeble; and the mortgagee not having made an affirmative showing of its fairness.)

15Bradbury v. Davenport, 120 Cal. 152, 52 Pac. 301.

16That he can not buy. Imboden v. Hunter, 23 Ark. 622, 79 Am. Dec. 116; Houston v. Loan Association, 80 Miss. 31, 92 Am. St. Rep. 565, 31 So. 540; Shew v. Call, 119 N. Car. 450, 56 Am. St. Rep. 678, 26 S. E. 33. That he can buy. Richards v. Holmes, 59 U. S. (18 How.) 143, 15 L. ed. 304; Smith v. Black, 115 U. S. 308, 29 L. ed. 398.

17Griffin v. Marine Co., 52 111. 130; Medsker v. Swaney, 45 Mo. 273.

1Jackson v. Combs, 18 D. C. (7 Mack.) 608, 1 L. R. A. 742.