
    HARRISBURG TRUST CO. v. SHUFELDT.
    (Circuit Court, D. Washington, N. D.
    January 23, 1897.)
    Actios on Note — Demand <⅛ Payment.
    The commencement of ■ an action on ,a note payable on demand is itself a ' demand of payment, and it is unnecessary to allege a request for payment before the commencement of the action.
    Strudwick & Peters, for plaintiff.
    Hastings & Steadman, for defendant.
   HANFORD, District Judge.

This is an action to recover a balance due after deducting partial payments upon a negotiable promissory note, made payable on demand. The defendant has demurred to the complaint, his contention being that the same is insufficient, for failure to allege a demand prior to the commencement of the action. There is a rule of long standing, and supported by the weight of authority in this country, that the commencement of an action is itself a demand, and that failure to request payment, prior to the commencement of the action, affords no ground of defense. Bank v. Fox, Fed. Cas. No. 2,683; 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 528z4G. It is insisted, however, that the courts and the text-books in this country have fallen into error by following early decisions, which were controlled by peculiar facts, and which are insufficient of themselves to establish a general rule upon.the subject. It is unwise to depart from business customs and practices which have been sanctioned by repeated decisions of courts, and acquiesced in for a considerable time, and which may fairly be supposed to have been contemplated by the parties at- the time of making their contract. This contract must be construed as one having been made subject to the rule above stated, and the maker of the note is, by the terms of his contract, liable without any demand, prior to the commencement of an action. Demurrer overruled.  