Jones

On the seventeenth day of January, 1880, the defendant executed to the plaintiff his promissory note' for one thousand dollars, payable on demand, with interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum. In the latter part of October or the beginning of November, 1884, plaintiff demanded payment of the note from defendant for the first time, and it .not being paid, he commenced this action, on the first day of April, 1885, to recover the amount due thereon.

The defendant pleaded payment, and that the action was barred by the provisions of section 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

At the trial the plaintiff was nonsuited, on the ground that his cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, and he thereupon appealed from the judgment entered against him.

It is argued for appellant that a note payable on demand with interest is a continuing security, and that the statute of limitations does not begin to run against it until demand for its payment has been actually made. The argument is based upon the supposed provisions of our Civil Code. (Sections 3131 et seq.)

The argument -is not sound. “It has always been the rule that suit may be .brought on a note payable on…