Limitations runs against an ordinary note payable "on demand " from the date of the note and not from the date of the demand.1 The same rule applies to a note to be paid when called for,2 or to one payable on demand after date.3 Some authorities hold that demand is necessary in such cases.4 In computing the time for which limitations has run on a de-"mand note the date of the payment extending the running of limitations is to be excluded.5 The application of this principle is of course not limited to notes but extends to all contracts to pay or perform on demand.6 If the note shows that demand

W. 228; affirmed on rehearing, 15 S. D. 257; 91 Am. St. Rep. 694; 88 N. W. 572; Bellows Falls Bank V. Bank, 40 Vt. 377.

6 Brummagin v. Tallant, 29 Cal. 503; 89 Am. Dec. 61; Hunt v. Divine, 37 I11. 137; Mereness v. Bank, 112 la. 11; 84 Am. St. Rep. 318; 83 N. W. 711; Mitchell v. Easton, 37 Minn. 335; 33 X. W. 910; Cur-ran v. Witter, 68 Wis. 16; 60 Am. Rep. 827; 31 N. W. 705.

7 Blades v. Bank (Ky.), 56 S. W. 415.

8 Scroggin v. McClelland, 37 Neb. 4544; 40 Am. St. Rep. 520; 22 L. R. A. 110; 56 N. W. 208.

1 Q'Neil v. Magner, 81 Cal. 631; 15 Am. St. Rep. 88; 22 Pac. 876; Old Aims-House Farm v. Smith, 52 Conn. 434; Blethen v. Murch. 80 Me. 313; 14 Atl. 208; Seward v. Hayden, 150 Mass. 158; 15 Am. St. Rep. 183; 5 L. R. A. 844; 22 N. E. 629; Mills v. Davis, 113 N. Y. 243;

3 L. R. A. 394; 21 N. E. 68; Hill v. Henry, 17 Ohio 9; Smith v. Bell, 107 Pa. St. 352; Collier v. Gray, 1 Overt. (Tenn.) 110. So of other contracts. Douglass v. Sargent, 32 Kan. 413; 4 Pac. 861.

2 Kraft v. Thomas, 123 Ind. 513 18 Am. St. Rep. 345; 24 N. E. 346.

3 Fenno v. Gay, 146 Mass. 118; 15 N. E. 87.

4 Due-bill payable on demand. Nash v. Woodward, 62 S. C. 418; 40 S. E. 895. A note payable " on demand as he may want to use the same." Stanton v. Stanton. 37 Vt. 411. Order drawn by school-district payable on demand. Blaisdelv. School District, 72 Vt. 63; 47 Atl. 173.

5 Seward v. Hayden. 150 Mass. 158; 15 Am. St. Rop. 183; 5 L. R. A. 844; 22 N. E. 629.

R Loan. Hall v. Letts. 21 la. 596. Mortgage. Martin v. Stoddard, 127 was really contemplated by the parties before liability should attach, such demand must be made before limitations begins to run. Thus limitations does not begin to run until demand in case of a note payable at a certain time after demand.7 So a contract of guaranty which binds the guarantor to pay certain sums on thirty days' notice is one on which no right of action accrues and limitations does not begin to run until thirty days after demand.8 So limitations does not run against a note given for corporate stock " payable in such installments and at such times as the directors may require,"9 or made payable on call by some similar form of expression10 until demand has been made.

If demand is properly made and refused,11 as in case of demand for performance of a contract to transfer stock,12 or-demand for the payment of a certified check,13 limitations begins to run. Demand upon one joint contractor and his refusal starts limitations to running in favor of all.14 A demand made and withdrawn before refusal does not start limitations to running.15