Where money is payable in instalments the statute runs as to each instalment from the time of the failure to pay it; Burnham v. Brown, 23 Me. 400; Bush v. Stowell, 71 Pa. 208, 10 Am. Rep. 694. But if the con tract provides that on failure to pay one in stalment the whole amount shall fall due, the statute runs as to the whole from such failure ; 3 G. & D. 402 ; so also where money is paid by mistake, statute begins to run from the time of payment ; Clarke v. Dutch mistake should, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been found out; West v. Fry, 134 Ia. 675, 112 N. W. 184, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1191; Snyder v. Miller, 71 Kan. 410, 80 Pac. 970, 69 L. R. A. 250, 114 Am. St. Rep. 489; also in case of usury ; Davis v. Con verse, 35 Vt. 503 ; Pritchard v. Meekins, 98 N. C. 244, 3 S. E. 484 (but a shorter time is frequently limited by statute) ; and where money is paid for another as surety ; Ben nett v. Cook, 45 N. Y. 268. Where money is paid by a bank on a forged check, the right of action to recover the same accrued immediately upon such payment; Leather Mfrs.' Bank v. Bank, 128 U. S. 26, 9 Sup. Ct. 3, 32 L. Ed. 342. An action to • recover over payments made on a contract to deliver logs accrues when the amount delivered was as certained, rather than at the date of pay ment ; Busch v. Jones, 94 Mich. 223, 53 N. W. 1051.
The limitation of a right of action for compensation for trespass in removing coal from the mine of another by an adjoining land owner, does not begin to run until the trespass is discovered or its discovery is rea sonably possible ; Lewey v. Coke Co., 166 Pa. 536, 31 Atl. 261, 28 L. R. A. 283, 45 Am. St. Rep. 684.
Where a contract lakes effect upon some condition or contingency, or the happening of some event, the statute runs from the Performance of the condition ; Gardner v. Webber, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 407; Ang. Lim. § 113; the happening of the contingency or event; Morgan v. Plumb, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 287; Louisiana v. U. S., 22 Ct. Cl. 284; and not from the date of the contract. On an agreement to devise, the statute runs from the death of the promissor ; Bash v. Bash, 9 Pa. 260. When money is paid, and there is afterwards a failure of considera tion, the statute runs from the failure ; Eames v. Savage, 14 Mass. 425; 9 Bing. 748.
Where continuous services are rendered, as by an attorney in the conduct of a suit, or by a mechanic in doing a job ; Lichty v. Hugus, 55 Pa. 434; Adams v. Bank, 36 N. Y. 255; 1 B. & Ad. 15 ; the statute begins to run from the completion of the service. On a promise of indemnity, when the promissee pays money or is damnified, the statute be gins to run; 8 M. & W. 680 ; Jones v. Trim ble, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 381; Douglass v. Rey nolds, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 113, 8 L. Ed. 626.
As to torts duasi ex contractu, the rule is that in cases of negligence, carelessness, un skilfulness, and • the like, the statute runs from the time when these happen respective ly, and hot from the time when damages ac crue therefrom; Wilcox v. Plummer, 4 Pet.
(U. S.) 172, 7 L. Ed. 821; Thruston v. Black iston, 36 Md. 501; Northrop v. Hill, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 136; Pennsylvania Co. v. Ry. Co., 44 Ill. App. 132. Thus, where an attorney neg ligently invests money in a poor security, the statute runs from the investment; 2 Brod.
move goods from a warehouse, whereby the plaintiff was obliged to pay damages, the statute runs from the neglect, and not from the payment of damages ; McKerras v. Gard ner, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 137; so, where the de fendant agreed to go into another state and collect some money, and on his return to pay off a certain judgment, the statute was held to run from the return and demand up on him; Baines v. Williams, 25 N. C. 481. A cause of action for an act which is in it self lawful, as to the person who bases there on an action for injury subsequently accru ing, from and consequent upon the act, does not accrue until the injury is sustained; Houston Water Works v. Kennedy, 70 Tex. 233, 8 S. W. 36.
The breach of a contract is the gist of the action, and not the damages resulting therefrom; & C. 259 ; Argall v. Bryant, 1 Sandi. (N. Y.) 98; 3 B. & Ald. 288. Thus, where the defendant had contracted to sell the plaintiff a quantity of salt, but was un able, by reason of the destruction of the salt, to deliver on demand, and prolonged ne gotiations for settlement till the statutory limitation had expired, and then refused, the statute was held to run from the de mand, the non-delivery being a breach of the contract; 1 E. L. & Eq. 44. So, where a no tary public neglects to give seasonable notice of non-payment of a note, and the bank em ploying him was held responsible for the failure, upon suit brought by the bank against the notary to recover the damages it had been obliged to pay, the action was held to be barred, it not being within six years 'of the notary's default, though within six •years of the time when the bank was required to pay damages ; President, etc., of Bank of Utica v. Childs, 6 Cow. 238.
So, where an attorney makes a mistake in a writ, whereupon, after prolonged litiga tion, non-suit follows, but not till an action against the indorser on the note originally sued has become barred, the mistake is held to set the statute in motion ; Wilcox v. Plum mer, 4 Pet. (U. S.) 172, 7 L. EA 821; Mardis' Adm'rs .v. Shackleford, 4 Ala. 495. Where he collects money for a client and uses no fraud or falsehood in regard to its receipt, the statute runs from the time of its collec tion ; Douglas v. Corry, 46 Ohio St. 349, 21 N. E. 440: 15 Am. St. Rep. 604. When the attorney dies before the legal proceedings are terminated the statute runs from his death ; Johnston v. McCain, 145 Pa. 531, 22 Atl. 979. The statute does not begin to run against an attorney's claim for services un til the termination of the action in which they are rendered ; Wells v. Town of Salina, 71 Hun 559, 25 N. Y. Supp. 134.