In the case of an overdrawn account with a bank secured by personal guarantee, as was the instant case, the bank may close the account in the sense that no further drawing will be met and may in addition demand payment of the account by the customer. In either case interest will continue to run on the balance of the account and, if that be the arrangement as in the present case, it will continue to be compounded on half-yearly rests. If an interval of time elapses between the closure of the account and the demand upon a surety who has executed an instrument of guarantee in the terms of the instrument here in question, the interest accruing in the interval will be added to the last half-yearly balance and the surety will be liable to pay so much of that total debt as falls within the limit of the guarantee. In my opinion, the surety's liability will not be to pay so much of the sum due to the Bank at the time of the closure of the account as fell within the limit of the guarantee. For example, if the amount due at the date of the closure of the account is less than the agreed limit of the guarantee, the surety will not be liable to pay only that amount and interest thereon. In such a case the Bank would be entitled to demand the full limit of the guarantee if at the date of the demand, due to interest having meantime accrued, that amount or more was due by the customer. Though the limit of the guarantee of an overdrawn account is expressed to be an amount and interest thereon as in the terms of the instrument of guarantee in this case there is, in my opinion, no principal sum the repayment of which the surety guarantees together with interest thereon as agreed. It is the amount due by the customer to the Bank at the date of the demand upon the surety which becomes due and payable by the surety subject to any limit of liability fixed by the instrument of guarantee. Here the limit is expressed to be £4,000 and interest on the said sum or so much as shall be owing or unpaid from time to time at the rate aforesaid and computed as aforesaid with half-yearly rests from the date hereof until payment. If the "said sum" is £4,000, as I think quite clearly it is, that sum cannot be regarded, in my opinion, as a principal sum due either by the company or the surety throughout so much of the period of the company's account with the appellant as was covered by the guarantee so that the limit of the surety's liability is £4,000 plus interest on £4,000 at a stated rate compounded on half-yearly rests for the whole period of the overdrawn account since the date of the guarantee. Such sum in truth may never have been due by the company for its balance as I have said from time to time included all interest at least to the last half-yearly day. The reference to the payment of interest in the portion of the guarantee which I have lastly quoted is, in my opinion, a reference to the payment of interest upon the sum due and owing by the surety. It is not intended, in my opinion, to effect and it is not apt to effect an extension of the limit of the surety's liability at the time of the demand for payment under the instrument of guarantee. If the words "the date hereof" in the portion of the guarantee quoted cannot be given literal effect, as I think in the circumstances they cannot, they may not, in my opinion, be treated as if they provided for the running of interest from the date of the composition. Accordingly, in my opinion, the respondents' liability which accrued at the date of the demand for payment must be determined by a comparison between the amount then due by the company including interest to the appellant and the sum of £4,000. That sum, in my opinion, is the full upward limit of the respondents' debt to the appellant though of course it will bear interest from the date of demand until payment by the respondents.