The maker of a promissory note stands in the same position as the acceptor of a bill of exchange. A failure to demand payment of the note does not prejudice him in any way. His engagement is to pay the note, and only payment will relieve him. A failure to demand payment from him or from an acceptor, except one supra protest, will not discharge the note1 or acceptance unless it was supra protest, nor prevent suit being brought upon it.2 The suit itself becomes a demand. A valid tender will prevent the running of interest against him from the date of the tender to the date of a demand. Again, if the note be payable at a particular place, or the acceptance be payable at a particular place, and the maker or acceptor be present there, or a deposit be present there at the maturity of the note or bill, and the note be not there,3 or the holder be not there prepared to receive payment,4 the maker or acceptor will be relieved from interest until a demand be made upon him,5 when interest will again run.

8 See notes 4 and 5, Sec. 235, ante, 1 Wallace v. MeConnel, 13 Pet. 136, and many other cases. The same rule applies to a note payable at a particular place. Dockray v. Dunn, 37 Ma 442; Carter v. Smith, 9 Gush. 321; Nichols v. Pool, 47 N. C. 23. The maker, by a tender at the place, stops interest. See notes 3 and 4, infra. If the maker is indorser, he has been held not entitled to notice. Schmidt v. Archer, 113 Ind. 365. But if demand is required to make the note draw interest, as a demand note without interest, a demand is necessary if interest is desired. Scovil v. Scovil, 49 Barb. 517. Coupons for interest need not be demanded. Williamsport Gas Co. v. Pinkerton, 95 Pa. 62; City of Nashville v. First Nat. Bank, 1 Baxt. 402. But attorney's fees provided for in note in order to be recovered require a demand upon the maker. See Prescott v. Grady, 91 CaL 518; Lindley v. Ross, 137 Pa. 629. But this ought to be true only as to a demand note. The maker, if the place of payment is not fixed, must look up the holder and pay the note so far as he himself is concerned. Gale v. Corey, 112 Ind. 39.

2See note 4, Sec. 233, ante.

3 Nichols v. Pool, 47 N. C. 23.

4Mulherrin v. Hannum, 2 Yerg. 81; Montgomery v. Tutt, 11 Cal. 307; Pryor v. Wright, 14 Ark. 189;