Limitation for wrongful bank withdrawals depends on Articles 48, 90 or 95, not the residuary Article 36.

Article 36 of the Limitation Act is a residuary provision and applies only where no specific article governs. In claims for money wrongfully drawn from a bank account, the clerk handling withdrawals may be treated as the bank's agent within the scope of his authority, so neglect or misconduct can attract Article 90. Money may also be treated as specific movable property, bringing claims for wrongful taking or detention within Article 48. Where pleadings disclose collusion and nondisclosure amounting to fraud, Article 95 may apply as a suit for relief on the ground of fraud. On that analysis, the claims were not barred by limitation and the three-year period under Article 48, or alternatively Article 95, applied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suits were barred by limitation and, for that purpose, whether Article 36, Article 48, Article 90 or Article 95 of the Limitation Act governed the claims for recovery of money wrongfully drawn from the bank.

Analysis: Article 36 is a residuary provision and applies only where no other specific article governs. The clerk in charge of the savings bank account was held to be an agent of the bank to the extent of his authority in handling withdrawals, so a claim arising from his neglect or misconduct could fall within Article 90. Independently, money was treated as specific movable property for the purposes of Article 48, which applies to compensation for wrongful taking or detaining such property. The pleadings also disclosed fraud by persons acting in collusion with the bank official whose duty it was to disclose that the withdrawals exceeded the credit balance, bringing the case within Article 95 as a suit for relief on the ground of fraud. Since the suits were filed within three years, the shorter two-year period under Article 36 did not apply.

Conclusion: The suits were not barred by limitation, and Article 36 was inapplicable; the claims were governed by the three-year period under Article 48 or, in any event, Article 95. The decrees below were set aside and the matters were remanded for decision on merits.

---