Limitations does not run against the right of a general depositor to recover from a bank until demand upon the bank has been made ;1 nor does it run against a similar deposit in the hands of an individual not a banker, subject to the order of the depositor.2 So between a principal and an agent authorized to hold money collected by him to his principal's order,3 or between a husband who has put money into his wife's hands, and such wife,4 limitations does not run till demand. A certificate of deposit is usually made payable on return of the certificate properly indorsed. Accordingly some courts have held that such a certificate must be so returned and demand made before limitations begins to run;5 while other authorities treat it as equivalent to a demand note, and bold that limitations runs from its date.6 A check is payable on demand, and as in the case of a demand note limitations is beld to run from its date,7 or at least after a reasonable time has elapsed within which such check can be presented for payment.8

7 Landis v. Saxton, 105 Mo. 486; 24 Am. St. Rep. 403; 16 S. W. 912.

8 Winchester, etc.. Turnpike Co. v. Wickliffe, 100 Ky. 531; 66 Am. St. Rep. 356; 38 S. W. 866.

9 Barnes v. Glide, 117 Cal. 1; 59 Am. St. Rep. 153; 48 Pac. 804.

1 Munnerlyn v. Bank, 88 Ga. 333; 30 Am. St. Rep. 159; 14 S. E. 554; Campbell v. Whoriskey, 170 Mass. 63; 48 N. E. 1070; Citizens' Bank v. Fromholz, 64 Neb. 284; 89 N. W. 775; Bank of British North America v. Bank, 91 N. Y. 106; Thomson v. Bank. 82 N. Y. 1; To-bin v. McKinney, 14 S. D. 52; 91 Am. St. Rep. 688; 84 N. W. 228; affirmed on rehearing, 15 S. D. 257; 91 Am. St. Rep. 694; 88 N. W. 572; Goodell v. Bank, 63 Vt. 303; 25 Am. St. Rep. 766; 21 Atl. 956.

2 Gutch v. Fosdick, 48 N. J. Eq. 353; 27 Am. St. Rep. 473; 22 Atl. 590; Goodwin v. Ray, 108 Tenn. 614; 91 Am. St. Rep. 761; 69 S. W. 730. So as to a deposit of money in lieu of bail. (City of) Savannah v. Kassell, 115 Ga. 310; 41 S. E. 572.

3 Cole v. Baker, - S. D. -; 91 N. W. 324.

4 Rucker v. Maddox, 114 Ga. 899; 41 S. E. 68. And see Fennell v. Drinkhouse, 131 Cal. 447; 82 Am. St. Rep. 361; 63 Pac. 734.

5 Brown v. McElroy, 52 Ind. 404; Bank v. Harrison, - N. M. -; 66 Pac. 460; Pardee v. Fish, 60 N. Y. 265; 19 Am. Rep. 176; Smiley v. Fry, 100 N. Y. 262; 3 N. E. 186; McGough v. Jamison, 107 Pa. St. 336; Tobin v. McKinney, 14 S. D. 52; 91 Am. St. Rep. 688; 84 N.