
    Babbet v. Belding.
    Where the obliga tion is to return the securities on demand, or to pay for them on demand, makes no difference in the estimation of damages.
    Action on a receipt or note in the words following, viz. July 3, 1790, received of Belding $278 and 30-90ths in continental loan-office certificates, with the interest from the 31st of December A. D. 1787, and $128 in indents, which I promise to return on demand.
    The defendant was defaulted, and upon a hearing in damages the court could not distinguish this from the common case of a note given for public securities; this is not a bailment, nor could an action of trover be sustained for the securities, but an action upon the promise contained in the writing.
   Judgment for the value at the date of the contract, principal at eleven shillings and six pence, indents and interest at seven shillings on the pound.  