LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 2053

Limitations runs from date of promissory note payable on demand, but only from
date of demand on certificate of deposit so payable. Fells Point Savs. Institution v.
Weedon, 18 Md. 326.

A usage to effect that deposits at a bank are only payable upon demand prevents
running of statute against such deposits until payment has been refused or some
act done dispensing with demand, which must be brought to knowledge of depositor.
Planters' Bank v. Farmers' Bank, 8 G. & J. 467.

When bank notifies depositor that his claim will not be paid, a demand is dis-
pensed with, and statute begins to run at once. Farmers' Bank v. Planters' Bank,
10 G. & J. 441; Planters' Bank v. Farmers' Bank, 8. G. & J. 467.

Where a contract is to be performed when same is demanded, limitations begins
to run from time demand is made. An equitable qualification of this rule discussed,
where demand is delayed an unreasonable time. Rhind v. Hyndman, 54 Md. 530.

Where debtor endorses promissory note payable on demand to his creditor in part
payment of a debt, the creditor is not bound to make demand on day note is
endorsed to him, and statute only begins to run after a reasonable time for making
of demand has expired. Mudd v. Harper, 1 Md. 111.

The statute begins to run from the date of a loan to be returned " when called
on to do so." Darnall v. Magruder, 1 H. & G. 439.

The statute begins to run in favor of a guarantor from time he is liable to suit,
which may or may not be same time principal becomes so liable. Where principal
makes a part payment before the statute has attached, the statutory period as
against guarantor or surety, is extended. When statute begins to run in favor of
guarantors. Hooper v. Hooper, 81 Md. 170.

In a suit for neglect of professional duty, cause of action accrues and statute
begins to run from time of the breach or neglect, not from time when consequential
damages result or are ascertained. Statute held a bar in suit against physician.
Hahn v. Claybrook, 130 Md. 181.

The statute of limitations begins to run in favor of stockholder as to his liability
under art. 23, sec. 147, only from date of order fixing amount to be paid by him.
Mister v. Thomas, 122 Md. 459.

The question of whether the statute of limitations was a bar to a suit held to be
a mixed question of law and fact. When statute begins to run. W., B. & A. Elec.
R. R. Co. v. Moss, 130 Md. 204.

Where a broker instead of effecting an immediate sale, negotiates a lease, the
tenant having an option to buy, statute begins to run against a suit by broker for
commissions on sale from time tenant exercises option. Coates v. Locust Point Co.,
102 Md. 292.

The statute begins to run against provisional trustee in insolvency from time of
his appointment and qualification, and when once commenced continues as against
permanent trustee. Teackle v. Gibson, 8 Md. 87.

The statute begins to run against endorser of note, or surety, from time he makes
payment. Bullock v. Campbell, 9 Gill, 183. As to sureties, see also Schindel v. Gates,
46 Md. 614; Hall v. Creswell, 12 G. & J. 49.

Where one joint maker of note pays it, statute begins to run as against his right
to contribution, from date of such payment. Brady v. Brady, 110 Md. 665; Hooper
v. Hooper, 81 Md. 155.

Where goods are sold with an agreement that a note will be given for them
maturing in 90 days, but no such note is given, and a suit is brought more than
three years after sale, but less than three years before note would have matured,
statute is not bar. Appleman v. Michael, 43 Md. 279.

Where one partner pays out money in behalf of firm, limitations only begins to
run as against his right to sue his co-partner from time an account is settled and a
balance ascertained. Holloway v. Turner, 61 Md. 222.

Where a claim for services against a deceased is founded simply on an implied
obligation, the statute begins to run from the time the services are performed
Dempsey v. McNally, 73 Md. 438.

The statute only begins to run against an administrator from the time he takes
out letters. Rockwell v. Young, 60 Md. 566.

The statute begins to run on liability of stockholder on his subscription to stock,
from time calls are made. Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 120. See also Taggart v.
Western Md. R. R. Co, 24 Md. 597.

Where purchaser of stock fails to have it transferred on books of company and
seller is subsequently compelled to pay an assessment, statute begins to run against
latter's suit against purchaser, from time of such payment. Hutzler v. Lord,
64 Md. 543.