## Facts

- In 1934, Mary Dana Houser delivered several historically significant items to the Ohio Historical Society for museum display.
- The items included two wedding dresses and various artifacts, including a carved powder horn.
- For each delivery, the parties executed a written receipt stating the items were “loaned for one year, or more” and could be withdrawn by the bailor “upon presentation of this receipt.”
- In 1948, Mary presented a receipt and obtained return of one wedding dress without dispute.
- Mary died in 1952; in 1975, Helen D. Houser was appointed administratrix of Mary’s estate.
- On December 29, 1975, the administratrix presented the receipts and demanded return of the remaining items; the Society refused.

## Issues

1. Whether, under a bailment receipt stating the property is loaned “for one year, or more” and retrievable “upon presentation of this receipt,” a cause of action for return accrues at the original loan or only upon presentation of the receipt and demand (and refusal), for statute-of-limitations purposes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the cause of action did not accrue until the receipts were presented and a demand for return was made.
- The statute of limitations therefore began to run no earlier than the 1975 demand, making the replevin action timely.
- The court affirmed the appellate judgment rejecting the statute-of-limitations bar.
- The court proceeded on the premise that the transaction was a bailment (not a gift) and did not decide any municipal-court jurisdiction question.

## Legal Principles

- When a bailment agreement provides that chattels are loaned “for one year, or more” and may be retrieved “upon presentation of this receipt,” the bailment is effectively terminable upon the bailor’s demand made by presenting the receipt.
- In an indefinite or demand-terminable bailment, a claim for return of property accrues only upon demand (as required by the agreement) and refusal, not upon initial delivery.
- The parties’ course of performance (e.g., prior return of an item upon presentation of the receipt) may confirm the demand-based return obligation contemplated by the bailment terms.

## Conclusion

Because the bailment receipts conditioned return on presentation of the receipt and contemplated an open-ended loan (“one year, or more”), the estate’s right to sue for return accrued only when the administratrix presented the receipts and demanded return in 1975; accordingly, the action was not time-barred.


Helen D. Houser v. Ohio Historical Soc'y, 62 Ohio St. 2d 77, 403 N.E.2d 965 (Ohio 1980)