The prevalence of a malignant disease or of a pestilence that suspends the functions of commerce ought to be an excuse for a failure to make a demand upon the person to be charged, if the pestilence prevails either at the place where the person resides or at the place where the holder resides. A decent regard for the public health would preclude the holder either going himself or sending an agent from the infected locality into a place where the pestilence did not prevail, even if public precaution should permit it; perhaps the person to be charged would refuse all personal communication with him; and if the pestilence prevailed in the place where the person to be charged lived, it is asking too much of any one to make a demand at the peril of his life, even if he could expect to find the parson there. If the parties live in the same place where the disease is prevalent, all business will be suspended by people of even rudimentary intelligence.1 But the demand will be excused no longer than the pestilence prevails, which is a limitation that is reasonable, because demand should not be excused altogether.2 It is reasonable to suppose that the person who ought to pay would do so as soon as business was resumed.