21 Iowa 596 | Iowa | 1866
The debt was- created in California, in the year 1850. It is claimed by the plaintiff, that the money which Ananias Simpkins, the decedent, obtained was a mere deposit (irregular, it may be, but still a deposit) to be returned on call, against which the statute could not run. Whilst the other party insists that it was a loan to draw interest, to be paid, to be sure, only on demand, but upon which the statute of limitations nevertheless operated.
We are inclined to hold that the petition, and the bill of particulars appended thereto, sufficiently determines the nature of the transaction, and shows the indebtedness to be a loan ; if so, the plaintiff is concluded by his own statement. To specify, the account upon which the plaintiff sues is stated thus:
Estate of Ananias Simpkins, deceased, Dr.,
To Thomas O. Studdons.
For amount of money loaned and intrusted to care of said deceased,................... $700 00
Interest for 12 years, at 6 per cent,.......... 504 00
$1,204 00
From this statement, but one inference can fairly be drawn; which is, that the ordinary relation of creditor and debtor existed between the parties, growing out of a loan of money on interest obtained by one from the other. The circumstance that the money was not to be paid until a demand was made in Iowa does not have the effect to suspend the running of the statute of limitations. Chitty on Contracts, 920; 1 Har. & Gill, 439 36 Barb., 467.
It may be remarked that an action accrues upon such a debt without a previous demand, and, indeed, none appears to have been made or alleged in this case.
Affirmed.