DEMAND. A claim; a legal obligation.
Demand is a term of art of an extent greater in its signification than any other word except claim. Co. Litt. 291; In re' Denny, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 220; Scott v. Mor ris, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 124; Murphy's Appeal, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 226.
A release of all demands is, in general, a release of all covenants, real or personal, conditions, whether broken or not, annui ties, recognizances, obligations, contracts, and the like ; In re Denny, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 220; but does not discharge rent before it is due, if it be a rent incident to the, reversion; for the rent was not only not due, but the consideration—the future enjoyment of the lands—for which the rent was to be given was not executed; 1 Lev. 99; Bac. Abr. Re lease, I. See 10 Co. 128; Bordman v. Os born, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 295; Martin v. Mar tin, 7 Md. 375, 61 Am. Dec. 364 ; Favors v. Johnson, 79 Ga. 555, 4 S. E. 925.
In Practice. A requisition or request to do a particular thing specified under a claim of right on the part of the person requesting.
In causes of action arising ex contractu it is frequently necessary, to enable plaintiff to bring an action, that he should make a demand upon the party bound to perform the contract or discharge the obligation. Thus, where property is sold to be paid for on delivery, a demand niust be made before bringing an action for non-delivery, and prov ed on trial; 5 Term 409; 3 M. & W. 254; Lit tle v. Banks, 67 Hun 505, 22 N. Y. Supp.
512 ; but not if the seller has incapacitated himself from delivering; 5 B. & Ald. 712; Wilmouth v. Patton; 2 Bibb (Ky.) 280; Rob bins v. Luce, 4 Mass. 474 ; and this rule and exception apply to contracts for marriage; 2 Dowl. & R. 55; 1 Chit. Pr. 57, note (n), 438, note (e). Nor is a demand necessary where it is to be presumed that it would have been unavailing; Davenport v. Ladd, 38 Minn. 545, 38 N. W. 622; Bogle v. Gor don, 39 Kan. 31, 17 Pac. 857. Where a selling price has been agreed on, the bring ing of a suit therefor is a sufficient demand for the money, claimed ; Maguire v. Durant, 1 Misc. 509, 20 N. Y. Supp. 617. A demand of rent is necessary before re-entry for non payment ; Parks v. Hays, 92 Tenn. 161, 22
S. W. 3. But where rent is payable on the first day of the month, no demand of the rent on the day it falls due is necessary to entitle the landlord to maintain an action therefor ; Clarke v. Charter, 128 Mass. 483. See RE-ENTRY. No demand is in general necessary on a promissory note before bring ing an action; but after a tender demand must be made of the sum tendered ; 1 Campb. 181, 474; 1 Stark. 323. A note payable "on call" may be sued on without demand ; Mo bile Say. Bank v. McDonnell, 83 Ala. 595, 4 South. 346 ; but a demand and notice of non-payment are essential to fix thh liabili ty of endorsers unless waived ; Presbrey v. Thomas, 1 App. D. C. 171. Where a mortgagor has resolved to default on an interest coupon and provides no funds to pay it, the holder is not required to pre sent it for payment before bringing suit ; Conshohocken Tube Co. v. Equipment Co., 161 Pa. 391, 28 Atl. 1119.
Cases in which a demand was held neces sary before action were suits upon a part nership; Codman v. Rogers, 10 Pick. 112; moneys received but not accounted for by an attorney to his client; Sheaf v. Dodge, 161 Ind. 270, 68 N. E. 292 ; Banner v. D'Au by, 34 Misc. 525, 69 N. Y. Supp. 891; Mad den v. Watts, 59 S. C. 81, 37 S. E. 209; Tay lor v. Bates, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 376; Sneed v. Hanley, Hemp. 659, Fed. Cas. No. 13,136 ; moneys received by a corporation officer not accounted for; Landis v. Saxton, 105 Mo. 486, 16 S. W. 912, 24 Am. St. Rep. 403; claim of reinstatement in a body from which one was illegally expelled; Meherin v. Produce Exchange, 117 Cal. 215, 48 Pac. 1074 ; money realized by a sheriff on execution but not paid over; Keithler v. Foster, 22 Ohio St. 27; a certificate of deposit issued by a bank which by Its terms was payable on its re turn properly endorsed ; Elliott v. Bank, 128 Ia. 275, 103 N. W. 777, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1130, 111 Am. St. Rep. 198; Hillsinger v. Bank, 108 Ga. 357, 33 S. E. 985, 75 Am. St. Rep. 42; but in another case it was held that action would lie without demand on a certificate of deposit; McGough v. Jamison, 107 Pa. 336. See Elliott v. Bank, 1 L. R. A.