## Facts

- In 1917, Therese Davis McCagg loaned two oil paintings to a Washington, D.C. art museum for free public exhibition.
- The loan terms were reflected only in correspondence and set no end date and no termination upon McCagg’s death.
- McCagg died in 1932; her will did not specifically mention the paintings but left her residuary estate to four siblings.
- The paintings were not collected during probate; the estate accounting was approved in 1933, and the court inferred the executor and residuary legatees were unaware of the paintings.
- Descendants of the residuary legatees learned of the paintings in 1979 after an inquiry about one painting.
- In 1980, the probate court reopened the estate based on newly discovered assets and appointed an administrator.
- The administrator demanded return of the paintings; the museum refused.
- The trial court ordered the museum to deliver the paintings to the estate for distribution to the owners; the museum appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the statute of limitations for replevin/conversion began to run before demand and refusal (e.g., at the bailor’s death or after a “reasonable time”), making the estate’s action untimely.
2. Whether a long, indefinite, gratuitous museum loan and decades of possession without demand vested title in the museum or otherwise defeated the owners’ claim.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the order requiring the museum to return both paintings to the estate.
- The action was timely because it was brought within the limitations period measured from the museum’s refusal following demand.
- The museum did not acquire title merely from long possession where its initial custody was permissive and not shown to have become adverse before refusal.

## Legal Principles

- When a bailee’s possession begins lawfully, a cause of action for conversion or replevin ordinarily accrues upon demand and refusal, not upon initial delivery.
- The “reasonable time for demand” concept depends on the parties’ expectations; when an indefinite delay is within their contemplation, demand may be delayed without starting limitations earlier.
- A gratuitous, indefinite loan of unique property for museum exhibition can constitute a bailment of very long duration; lapse of time alone does not transfer title to the bailee absent an open and unequivocal repudiation of the bailor’s title.
- An estate may be reopened for newly discovered assets, and property subject to a residuary clause may be recovered by the estate for distribution to successors in interest.

## Conclusion

The court treated the paintings as the subject of an indefinite gratuitous bailment, held that limitations ran from demand and refusal because extended possession was contemplated by the loan, and required the museum to return the paintings to the reopened estate for distribution to the decedent’s residuary successors.


In re Estate of McCagg, 450 A.2d 414 (D.C. 1982)