Various rules have been laid down as to when the statute of limitations will begin to run upon a deposit. Under some statutes there is no limitation.1 In another state the pass-book is held to be an evidence of indebtedness in writing and the action is governed by the provision applicable thereto.2 But in another state a receipt for a deposit was held to be not a written contract.3 Other states hold that the statute begins to run from the statement of the account,4 which would be the monthly balance struck.5 The rule is held in another jurisdiction that the statute begins to run from the date of the deposit.6 This rule is held in other states as to certificates of deposit payable upon demand.7 But the rule ought to be in reason and common sense that the statute begins to run both upon deposits8 and upon certificates of deposit, whether payable on demand or not, from the demand,9 or from a refusal to pay the deposit,10 or something equivalent thereto, such as a notification that the bank will not pay 11 or its suspension.12 The publication of an unclaimed deposit

1 Green v. Odd Fellows Bank, 65 Cal. 71.

2 Schalucky v. Field, 124 I11. 617.

3Talcott v. First Nat Bank, 53 Kan. 480.

4 In re Penn Bank, 152 Pa. 65.

5 Union Bank v. Knapp, 3 Pick. 96. See Dickinson v. Leominster Bank, 152 Mass. 49.

6 Locke v. First Nat. Bank, 65 N. H. 670. This is the rule as to certificates of deposit payable on demand in some jurisdictions. Brum-magim v. Tallent, 29 Cal. 503; Mitchell v. Easton, 37 Minn. 335.

7 See the last note.

8 Viets v. Union Nat Bank, 101 N. Y. 563; Starr v. Stiles, 19 Pac. R 225; Branch v. Dawson, 33 Minn. 399; Girard Bank v. Bank, 39 Pa. 92; Brown v. Pike, 34 La. Ann. 576; Union Bank v. Planters' Bank, 9

Gill & J. 439; Munnerlyn v. Augusta Sav. Bank, 88 Ga. 333. The last case contains a foolish suggestion as to laches.

9 Howell v. Adams, 68 N. Y. 314; McGough v. Jamison, 107 Pa. 336; Fells Point Sav. Inst v. "Weedon, 18 Md. 320. If it be a time certificate the same rule ought to apply, because no suit lies until a demand is made.

10 This is equivalent to a demand. Farmers' Bank v. Planters' Bank, 10Gill & J. 422; Viets v. Union Nat Bank, 101 N. Y. 563, a refusal to pay a check has been held to be a new promise to take the case out of the statute.13 But the payment of interest after the withdrawal of a partner will not continue the cause of action against the withdrawing partner.14 And a bank may pay an undisputed check without suspending the statute as to a disputed part of the deposit.15

11 See last note.

12 Union Bank v. Planters' Bank, 9 Gill & J. 439; but Riddle v. First Nat. Bank, 27 Fed. R 503, is contra as to certificates of deposit, where a receiver was appointed.