
    BURGIN against RIGGINS.
    OH OEBTIORARI.
    An action lies to recover notes deposited.
    Several reasons were assigned for the reversal of this judgment, founded, however, on the insufficiency of the following state of demand, filed with the justice:
    The plaintiff demands of the defendant ninety-eight dollars for this, to wit: — The plaintiff left two notes of hand, or sealed instruments, commonly called notes of hand, against one Ebenezer Horton, amounting to ninety-eight dollars, bearing date the 12th of July, 1808, and at the special agreement of the defendant to return the same on a certain time, or was accountable to pay the amount thereof to the plaintiff. The plaintiff having demanded the said instruments, so called notes of hand, of the defendant [*] at different times, and the defendant refused the same to return, the plaintiff has at different times, had the cash offered to him for the said notes, whereby damages occurred to the plaintiff for the amount of said notes, being ninety-eight dollars, for which plaintiff prays judgment.
   By the Court.

We can perceive no legal objection to the plaintiff’s recovery on this special contract. The state of demand is not drawn in technical form, but that is not required. It substantially states that the plaintiff deposited in the defendant’s hands two notes of hand, on which the defendant promised to return them or pay the amount; that the plaintiff demanded the notes, and the defendant refused to deliver them, whereby the plaintiff suffered damages.

Judgment affirmed.  