
    Darnall’s Ex’rs. vs. Magruder.
    June, 1827.
    A receipt for a sum of money by which the person receiving it undertook to return the sum borrowed, “when called on to do so,” creates a cause of action from its date, bearing interest, and against which the act of limitations begins to run, from that time.
    Appeal from Prince-George’s County Court. Action of assumpsit brought on tho 6lh of April 1822, for money lent and advanced —money had and received — money laid out, expended and paid, and on an insimul computassent. The defendant, (the appellee,) pleaded non assumpsit, non assumpsit infra tres annos; and actio non accrevit infra tres annos. Issues joined on the general replications.
    At the trial the plaintiffs gave in evidence the following rer eeipt signed by the defendant: “Received, June 3d, 1807, of Mr. John Da^nall, the sum of two hundred and eleven dollars, which I hereby engage to return to him when called on to do so. Id. Magruder?’
    
    Whereupon the defendant prayed the court to instruct the jury, that if they should be of opinion from the evidence in the cause, that three years had elapsed from the date of said paper before the impejtration of the original writ in this cause, thaj; then they must find a verdict for the defendant. Which opinion and instruction, the Court, [Stephen, Ch. J. and Key, A. J.] gave to the jury. The plaintiffs excepted; and the verdict and judgment being for the defendant, they appealed to'this court.
    The cause was argued before Buchanan, Ch. J. and Earle, and Martin, J.
    
      Magruder, for the Appellants,
    contended, that the act of limitations did not begin to run from the date of the instrument of writing, nor until demand of payment. He referred to 2 Stark. Evict. 891. Collins vs Benning, 12 Mod. 444. He insisted that interest could be claimed only from the time demand was made of the money due.
    C. Dorsey, for the Appellee.
    The action is not on the instrument of writing; but is an action of general indebitatus assumpsit, which admits that the money was due at the time the promise was made. He cited Bull. N. P. 181. Walmsley vs Child, 1 Ves. 344. 15 Vin Ab. tit. Limitation, 103, pl. 14. Wallis vs Scott, 1 Stra 88.
   The Court.

No doubt interest might be demanded from the date of the instrument of writing; and of course it became due and payable on the day of its date.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  