opinion: BOER v. REVESZ et al.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
  February 6, 1928.
  No. 3860.
  1. Banks and banking <®=»188!/2r-Deciaration alleging delivery of money, and defendant’s failure to deposit it in Hungarian bank or deliver passbook, held good on general demurrer.
  Declaration alleging that plaintiff, a citizen of Indiana, was induced by defendants, citizens of Illinois, to deliver them named amount of money, which they agreed to deposit to plaintiff’s credit in Hungarian bank and deliver passbook to her therefor, or return money within reasonable time, that defendants failed to make deposit or deliver passbook, and on demand refused to return money, field to state cause of action.
  2. Limitation of actions <S^I80(I) — Statute of limitations cannot, under Illinois practice, be raised by general demurrer.
  The statute of limitations cannot, under the Illinois practice, be raised by a general demurrer to a declaration.
  In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.
  Action by Regina Boer against Albert Revesz and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
  Reversed and remanded, with directions.
  John E. Hughes, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error.
  Lester L. Bauer, of Chicago, Ill., for defendants in error.
  Before ALSCHULER, EYANS, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
  PAGE, Circuit Judge.
  The only question presented by this writ is whether the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois erred in sustaining a general demurrer to the declaration of plaintiff in error.
  The declaration, filed June 1, 1925, alleges, in substance:
  That plaintiff, a citizen of Indiana, because of representations made to her by defendants, citizens of Illinois, was induced, on or about January 15, 1917, to deliver to defendants $7,150, for which she received an instrument in writing as follows:
  “Chicago, Ill., Jan. 15, 1917.
  “Received from Mrs. M. Domoko’s Oden Boer seven thousand and one hundred fifty dollars for (foreign money) kronen 55,000 to be remitted to Magyar Kirahji Postaresidenee Takarekpentztar Budapest.
  “Resvesz & Szoeke, per Revesz.”
  That defendants agreed they would, within a reasonable time thereafter, deposit to plaintiff’s credit in the Royal Hungarian Post Savings Bank, 55,000 kronen and deliver to her a passbook therefor, and in event they failed within a reasonable time to deliver the passbook they would return, upon request, the $7,150; that defendants did not deposit the 55,000 kronen to her credit, or deliver a passbook to her therefor, and, upon her demand, made January 15, 1919, refused to return the $7,150 or deliver such passbook, thereby breaching their contract, to her damage in the sum of $12,000.
  The record does not disclose in what particular the court found the declaration defective, nor do we have the aid of a brief from defendant in error, but counsel for defendant in error, on oral argument in this court, urged that the declaration is defective, because he is unable to tell therefrom whether the plaintiff is relying upon a written undertaking or an oral one, and he therefore did not know what statute of limitations to plead, and that, in any event, it appeared that the statute of limitations had run against the action. Whether the statute of limitations had run is a question which cannot, under the Illinois practice, be raised by a general demurrer. Heimberger v. Elliot Switch Co., 245 Ill. 448, 450, 92 N. E. 297. The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense.
  We are of opinion that the declaration, though informal, states a good cause of action, and that the judgment should be, and it is, reversed, and the cause remanded, with direction to overrule the demurrer to the declaration.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama