
    Inman, in Error, versus Wheeler.
    A demand, on which a writ indorsed by the plaintiff himself had been sued out, was referred, pursuant to St. 1786, c. 21, which requires the person having the demand to make out a u statement thereof, under his hand in writing,” to be annexed to the rule of submission. Held, that annexing the writ was sufficient.
    Error to reverse a judgment rendered upon the report of referees upon a demand submitted to them under the statute of 1786, c. 21, § 1. The error assigned was, that no demand signed by Wheeler was annexed to the rule of submission.
    
      Mams, for the plaintiff in error, said,
    that the defendant m error had sued out a writ against the plaintiff in error, and that this writ was the demand which was annexed to the rule of submission ; and he contended that this did not satisfy the requisition of the statute, that the party should “ make out-a par ticular statement of his demand under his hand in writing.’ He cited Monosiet v. Post, 4 Mass. Rep. 532; Jones v. Hacker, 5 Mass. Rep. 264.
    
      Hastings, contra,
    
    said that the object of the statute was suf Sciently answered in this case, and that the indorsement of the writ, which was by Wheeler himself, might be considered as a signing, if a signing was necessary.
   Per Curiam.

As the object of the legislature was, that there should be a specific demand, and as they say merely that it shall be under the hand of the party, but do not say that it shall be subscribed, we think annexing the writ was sufficient. Nothing could be better than the writ to show the nature of the demand.

Judgment affirmed, with costs  