CH. 11. Art. 4. party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereto by him lawfully authorized. 5th. That no contract for the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandise, of the price of £10 or more, shall be allowed to be good, except the purchaser 10 John R. shall accept part of the goods so sold and actually receive the 364. same, or give something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part payment, or that some note or memorandum in writing of the bargain be made and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereto by him lawfully authorized." See 29 Charles II, s. 17; Ch. 32, a. 7. A bill of parcels with the deft's. name printed, and vendee's written by vendor, is a good memorandum to charge the vendor. 2 Maule & S. 286. § 2. This act is in the same words as was the province 10 Johns. R. statute of 1692, and as is the statute of frauds and perjuries Must be exof the 29th Charles II. in England. And the same construc- press, not to tion has been invariably made upon all of them. Same in be performed within a year. New York act (Sess. 10, c. 44,) enacted, and in most of the states. Hence English constructions apply to them. acts. 244. Cock v. Ba 3. As to the 1st provision in this act, as to executors and Strange 34, administrators, it is plain; so clear, that no questions of any ker-Imp. importance are to be found in the books on this branch of the M. P. 167. As to the 2d branch of these acts, the debt of another; See Ch. 32.Ld. Raym. this has been considered in Ch. 9, a. 20. As to the 3d branch, 387.-2 Eq. it is settled, that mutual promises to marry are not within the act; for they relate only to contracts in consideration of marriage, as to pay money, make settlements, &c. in consideration of a marriage had, or to be had. There are, however, some few cases to the contrary, as 3 Lev. 65; Skin. 196. Ca. Abr. 248. 1 Com. D. 199. § 4. As to the 4th branch or provision respecting one year. Imp. M. P. It is settled, that "where the agreement is to be performed on 167, 168. a contingency, and it does not appear within the agreement Chris. notes, that it is to be performed after the year, then a note in writing is not necessary, for the contingency might happen within the year; but when it appears by the whole tenor of the agreement, that it is to be performed after the year, then a note in writing is necessary," otherwise not. 1 W. Bl. 353. 13.-3 Burr. 1281.-Bull. N. P.277. -See Skin. 336, 353. 1 B. & Alderson, 722. Peter v. 3 Burr. 1278, § 5. As where the deft. agreed for one guinea, "to give the Salk. 280.plt. so many guineas at the day of his marriage." This might Frompton, happen within the year. So a promise to pay on the return Skin. 353of a ship, which did not return in less than two years; this 3 Salk. 9. promise is good without writing, for the event might have hap- Fentonv.Empened within a year, and the statutes extend only to those blers, exr.— promises that, by the terms of them, are not to be performed 1Ld. Raym. within the year. 6. Assumpsit against the deft. as executor of Mary May, 3 Burr 1278, in consideration the plt. would be his house-keeper and ser—1 W. Bl. 353, cited Rob. on Frauds 188.—Cited 1 Phil. Evid. 366. 31 VOL. I 316, Smith v. Westal. Fenton v. Сн. 11. 2 Vent. 361. 199.-3 Bos. & P. 233, Kent v. Hutchinson. vant &c., by parol, promised her to give her £8 a year, and leave her by his will an annuity of £16 a year. She lived with him till he died, and he not making the provision in his will, she sued his executor; and the court held, that no note in writing was necessary, as it depended on a contingency that might happen within a year; as the testator might have died within that time. Bul. N. P. 280.-1 Salk. 279.-1 Ld. Raym. 316.-11 East 142, 159, 366. 7. A letter by one is a good memorandum, that he pro-1 Com. D. mises the thing contained in it, for this matter is in writing and signed by the proper person; but not a letter refusing the offered goods, and returning them, saying the price was too high. Every writing must contain the material parts of the agreement. Ch. 32, a. 10, s. 12. 1 Stra. 506, Powers v. Osborne, cited as law 1 Esp. 14. 1 H. Bl. 20, Alexander v. 2 Selw. 479. -7 D. & E. Comber. 14.-3 Maule & Sel. 178. 2 H. Bl. 63, Rondeau v. 8. As to the said fifth provision in the statute as to goods &c., of the value of £10 or more sold &c., numerous decisions have been made. Only a part of the most authentic can be noticed here. The words of this clause in the act may be taken in order. "No contract for the sale" &c. Once held, that this did not extend to contracts executory, or to be executed; as where the deft. spoke for a chariot, and when made refused to take it; held, not within the act. Like decisions 4 Burr. 2101, Clayton v. Andrews, as to the sale of wheat &c. But this opinion, that the act relates only to executed contracts, or where the goods were to be delivered immediately after the sale, has been sometime exploded. 9. It is now held, if the goods agreed for are complete and ready for delivery when the bargain is made, the case is within the statute, but otherwise, if not ready, but are to be made or manufactured, or some labour is to be done, or materials provided, in order to make them ready to be delivered. § 10. Cases. The plt. agreed to buy sheep at the Leeds fair, and take them away at a certain hour. There was no money paid, no sheep delivered; the plt. not coming to take the sheep at the time appointed, the deft. sold them to A, the plt. brought trover. Held, the case was within the statute, and that no property vested in the plt. there being neither earnest, delivery, nor agreement in writing-no doubt the price was above £10. Here was a bare agreement by parol only, and no act done to change the property, and the goods were ready to be delivered when agreed for. But an agreement to leave money by will, need not be in writing; an act to be done but in future, see Fenton v. Emblers, above, s. 6. The statute of New York, sect. 15, like 29 Ch II, sect. 17 above, applies as well to contracts executory as executed. Agreement to sell apples, value above $25. 10 Johns. R. 364, Bennet v. Hull.-Grover v. Duck, 3 Maule & Sel. 178.Cooper v. Elston, 7 D. & E. 14.-4 Maule & S. 262, Astley v. Emery. The next words in the clause are, goods, wares, and merchandise; there seem to have been no decisions explaining these words. In Pickering v. Appleby, Com. R. 354, 358, the court doubted if they included ten shares of stock in copper mines; many cases cited by the counsel as to the meaning of the words goods &c. cited Roberts on Frauds 184. See the cases cited Rob. on Frauds 184 to 188, as Colt v. Netterville, 2 P. W. 307.-Mussel v. Cooke, Pr. in. Ch. 533. On the whole, the leaning seems to be, that stocks are not goods, wares, or merchandise. Next words, £10 or upwards in Massachusetts, is £10 lawful or $33.33; New York, £10 or $25, in England, £10 sterling; so varying in some other states. CH. 11. Art. 4. 233, Kent v. Next words are," except the purchaser shall accept part of 3 Bos. & P. the goods so sold and actually receive the same" &c. There must Huskinson. be an acceptance that confirms the bargain. As when the plt. sent a bale of sponge under a verbal order to the deft. at 11s. a pound. The deft. returned it, and with it a letter, saying it was worth but 6s. and so he returned it. Held, this letter did not amount to such an acceptance of the goods as to take the case of the statute. As to what is a delivery and acceptance, see Ch. 32, a. 10, s. 1, 2, 3, 4, Towers v. Osborne, Chaplin v. Rogers, Searle v. Kieves, Hind v. Whitehouse. See also Elmore v. Stone, 1 Taun. 458, and Ch. 32, a. 3, s. 4, Atkinson v. Maling, a ship at sea. See 2 Ves. 272-3 Bro. Ch. Ca. 362, if the buyer treats the goods as if in his actual possession, this is an acceptance that confirms the bargain. The delivery of a sample must be a part of the goods sold, Ch. 32, a. 10, s. 4, Hinde v. Whitehouse, Cooper v. Elston, 7 D. & E. 14.—Talver v. West, 1 Holt's R. 178. Quære, as to part performance, 1 Ves. jr. 326, 334.-2 Johns. R. 221, 227, many cases cited undecided, Ch. 32, a. 11, s. 8. Strong cases as to accepting, and received, A. D. 1820, 3 Barnwall & Alderson 321, Howe v. Palmer. Vendee, verbally agreed at a public market with the vendor's agent, to buy twelve bushels of tares in the vendor's possession on his farm, to remain there till called for. The agent on his return home measured the twelve bushels, and set them apart for the vendee. Held, no acceptance. Page 680, Tennet v. Fitzgerald. A agreed to buy a horse of B for ready money and take him away in a time agreed on. Near the expiration of that time A rode the horse, and gave directions as to his treatment, and requested he might remain longer in B's possession, but did not pay. Held, no acceptance. 1 Phil. Evid. 380, 381. Next words in the act are," or give something in earnest to bind the bargain" &c. See cases on this point, Ch. 11, a. 2, s. 1, 2, 3, Ch. 139, a. 8, s. 9, Ch. 214, a. 5, s. 2, and 1 CH. 11. 9 Ves. 351.2 Bos. & P. 238, Allen v. Bennett. 3 Ves. & Bea. 187.-2 Bos. 3 Atk. 503, Ch. 127, a. 5, & P. 239. s. 2. 2 Maule & Moore's R. 328, a shilling offered and not accepted does not bind it. Next words are, "some note or memorandum in writing of the bargain made and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him, lawfully authorized." On this clause the first question is, does the word, bargain, include the consideration, so that this must be expressed in the memorandum? On this point, see Wain v. Warlters, Ch. 9, a. 20, s. 33, Ch. 11. a. 14, and cases there cited, Hunt, adm. v. Adams, case Ch. 1, a. 25, s. 1.-Egerton v. Matthews, and other cases there cited, Ch. 11. a. 14, and cases there cited, as Sears v. Brinks, Stack v. Sill, &c. &c., but the word bargain is used in the 17 sect. 29 Ch. II. So in Mass. act the word agreement is used as to paying another's debt. Then as to bargain, Egerton v. Matthews may govern, Ch. 1, a. 25, s. 1 ; Ch. 11. a. 14, s. 5. Why have this and like cases been classed with Wain v. Warlters? This too has been questioned by Lord Eldon, 14 Ves. 189, Minet's case. --15 Ves. 286, Gordon's case.--Roberts on Frauds 117, note 58.--Fell on Mercantile Guaranties 246, and by C. J. Parsons, Ch. 11, a. 14, s. 5. The promisee's engagement need not, appear, the jury may find his assent to the bargain; 6 East 307, 308, Egerton v. Matthews & al. As where the defts. agreed in writing to buy of the plt. thirty bales of Smyrna cotton, they signed, but the plt. did not. The act is to be signed by the party to be charged. 2 Johns. Ch. Cas. 164.-3 Taunt. 169.-3 Johns. Cas. 60.-4 Bos. & P. 252, 254.--3 Johns. R. 399.--7 Ves. 275, promisee's name must appear &c. What is signing. Making a mark is signing; see the word, mark, in the index. So the name printed or written with a pencil is signing. Saunderson v. Jackson, 14 Johns. R. 484. -12 Johns. R. 102. Mode of placing the signature, see Ch. 11, a. 7, above. 1 Phil. Evid. 370, 371, 272, 273. The form of the note or memorandum. This is not material; a letter is, Ch. 11, a. 4, 7, a. 8, several cases; a letter written by any one for one party, and communicated to the other is one. 2 Ch. R. 147.-1 Vern. 110, Hodgson v. Hutchinson.--5 Vin. Abr. 522, 527. Ch. 11, a. 10, s. 3. But a letter not written to be communicated to the other party, nor 7 Taun. 295. actually communicated to him, is not a memorandum. 2 P. W. 65, Ayliff v. Tracy; but is, if it state the agreement as already made by the party, but not to, or for the other party. 3 Atk. 503, and 2 Bos. & P. 238, also Tawney's Ca. a. 8.1 Scho. & Lefr. 22. Enough the letter recognises the past transaction. 1 Atk. 12.--11 Ves. 550.--1 Johns. Ch. R. 273. But the letter or writing sigued must lead by writings to the -2 Bos. & P. 238. very terms of the contract in writing. 11 East 142.-1 Ves. Jr. 326, 334.-1 Scho. Lefr. 22.-3 Ves. & Beames 192. -2 Ball & Beatty 370. v. CH. 11. Art. 5. No parol evidence to vary the memorandum. See Mery v. Axsel, Preston v. Meruau, and many other cases, Ch. 93, parol evidence, also Binsted v. Coleman, Bunb. 65.-1 Ves. 326, 334, Ch. 11, a. 10, s. 1, Clinan Cooke ib. Walker v. Walker ib.-1 Johns. Ch. R. 279, but may be admitted as to the time of delivery &c., 3 D. & E. 590, 592, in Littler v. Holland, Cuff v. Penn, 1 Maule & S. 21, and Ch. 93, a. 3, s. 15.-14 Ves. 524, 254. Next words, 66 or some other person authorized" &c. If an 9 Ves. 250.agent sign as a witness it is sufficient, if he know the contents, 102. and puts his name so as to sanction the contract. See Auction and Auctioneer. 1 Johns. R. 3 Burr. 1921, Simon v. Mo § 11. Sales at auction. (See Ch. 16.) It is said, that sales at public auction are not within the statute, and the auctioneer tivos.—Bul. must be considered as the agent of the buyer (after knocking N. P. 275. down the hammer) as well as for the seller, and that his setting down in writing the name of the buyer, the price, &c., was sufficient to take the case out of the statute. See Ch. 16, a. 1, s. 14, Hinde v. Whitehouse.-Imp. M. P. 170.-1 Esp. 14.-1 W. Bl. 599.-2 H. Bl. 63, Rondeau v. Wyatt. See a. 6, s. 14, and Ch. 16.-Blagden v. Bradbear, 12 Ves. 466. § 12. But in Rondeau v. Wyatt, Lord Loughborough held 2 H. Bl. 63.-executory contracts within the act, though it has been admitted 1 Com. D. by the party in his answer in chancery and is void, 7 D. & E 18. Sel. 153. 198.-1 Phil. Evid. 359. Constable. 13. Held, that a sale at auction of lands is within the act. Bos. & P. 306, See more of sales at auction, Ch. 16, and New. on Contracts Walker v. 176.-1 Esp. R. 105, 107.-7 Ves. 341.-9 Ves. 249.-4 Ch. 32, a. 9, Taun. 208.-2 Taun. 28. It seems to be well settled, that in s. 9. the sale of goods the auctioneer's writing down the buyer's name, is a signing by an authorized agent of the parties. So s. 12. is the better opinion as to the sale of lands, but the agent Ch. 32, a. 10, must not be one of the parties. ART. 5. A parol agreement cannot control a deed, and how Littler v. Holfar a writing? 1. Covenant. The plts. agreed to build two land.-3 D. & houses for the deft., on or before April 1, 1788, in considera- E. 590, 593. tion whereof, the deft. was to pay £500. Held, the parties could not, by a subsequent parol agreement, enlarge the time for building the houses, for the obligation of a covenant cannot be varied by a parol contract. As to the certainty of the contracts, see Ch. 225, a. 10, s. 5. 2. Debt on arbitration bond; award to be made by 3 D. & E. a certain day. The declaration stated, that the parties after- 592, Brown wards, by mutual consent, enlarged the time, within which v. Goodwin. |