agree to sell," and signed by the vendec only, is sufficient to bind both parties. A signature by a party as a witness to a deed, which recited the agreement, has been held to be sufficient, as he knows the contents b. If signed by the party charged, it is suffi The memorandum need only be signed by the party against whom it is sought to enforce the contract. Where the defendant signed a memorandum on the back of a bill, containing the particulars and conditions of sale of certain premises, which cient. were sold by auction, by which he acknowledged that he was the purchaser; it was held a sufficient compliance with the statute though it was not signed by or on behalf of the vendor. "I think," said Tindal, C. J., "that the object of the fourth section was, that no action should be brought upon any contract, or sale of lands, unless the agreement was signed by the defendant in the action. But it is objected, that by this construction there is a want of mutuality in the contract, because the defendant is without any remedy to enforce the contract, as against the plaintiff. But whose fault is that? The defendant might have insisted that the plaintiff, or his agent, should sign the contract. But it seems to be the object of the statute to secure the defendant's signature; for the preamble declares that the statute was passed for the prevention of many fraudulent practices, which are endeavoured to be upheld by perjury,' and the beneficial object of the statute is wholly answered by this construction." e a Knight v. Crockford, 1 Esp. 189. See Stokes v. Moore, 1 P. Wms. 790. Ogilvie v. Foljambe, 3 Mer. 62. Welford v. Beazeley, Wils. 118. But see Gosbell v. Archer, post, 1063, where it was held, that the clerk of an auctioneer, who had signed a contract as a witness, could not be considered as an agent within the statute, and the court doubted that even if he knew the contents, it C Laythorpe v. Bryant, 2 Bing. N. C. 744. 2 Hodges, 25. Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 265. Westam v. Russell, 3 Ves. & B. 192. Egerton v. Mathews, 6 East, 307. But the contract so signed must disclose the name of the other party. Champion v. Plumer, I N. R. 252. SECTION XII. AGENT. AN agent's authority under this act need not be in writing; and it has been decided, that parol evidence was admissible to shew, that a party was an agent, who signed an agreement generally, without expressing that he was an agent b. An agent cannot depute his authority; therefore the clerk of an agent is not authorized to sign for his principal, though the principal may confirm his act, and thereby render himself liable. The agent must be a third party; therefore one of the contracting parties cannot sign as agent for the other d. An auctioneer is agent for both parties e. Sale of goods for the price of 107. SECTION XIII. THE 29 CAR. II. c. 3. s. 17. AND 9 G. IV. c. 14. s. 7. SEC. 17, enacts that "no contract for the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandize, for the price of 101. or upwards, shall be allowed to be good, except the buyer shall accept part of the goods so sold, and actually receive the same, or give something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part of payment; or that some note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain, be made and signed by the parties to be charged by such contract, or their agents thereunto lawfully authorized." It having been held in several cases, that the above enactment did not apply to executory contracts, or to contracts for the sale of goods which, to the knowledge of the vendee, were not specifically in existence at the time of the sale; and it being deemed expedient to extend the remedy to such contracts, lue of 101. It was enacted by the 9 Geo. IV. c. 14. s. 7, "that the pro- Of the vavisions of the seventeenth section, as aforesaid, should extend to all contracts for the sale of goods of the value of 107. and upwards, notwithstanding that the goods may be intended to be delivered at some future period, or may not at the time of such contract be actually made, procured, or provided, or fit or ready for delivery, or some act may be requisite for the making or completing thereof, or rendering the same fit for delivery." It is observable that there is a distinction between the wording of the two sections; for the contract mentioned in the seventeenth section, is for the sale of goods for the price of 10l.; whereas in the seventh section, it is of goods of the value of 10. In reference to this distinction, Tindal, C. J., says, "the extreme accuracy of the mind of the framer of the 9 Geo. IV. c. 14. s. 7, is shewn in this; that while the seventeenth section of the statute of frauds in its enactment touching contracts for the sale of goods, employs the word price, the framer of the latter act has substituted the word value, so that where the parties have omitted to fix a price, it may be open to the jury to ascertain the value in dispute." a SECTION XIV. WHAT CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF GOODS ARE WITHIN THESE ENACTMENTS. ALL contracts for the sale of goods are within the statute, whether the goods are to be delivered immediately or not. Thus, a contract for the sale of flour, which at the time was not prepared and in a state of immediate delivery, was held to be within the statute b. So a contract to sell oil not then expressed from seed in the vendor's possession . So was a contract to 483. Hoadly v. M'Lane, 10 Bing. 613. > Garbutt &. Watson, 5 B. & A. 11. Wilks v. Atkinson, 6 Taunt. Purchasing several ar ticles at one time at separate prices. supply a house with pipes, to be laid in a specified manner". So, an agreement to furnish chimney-pieces at certain prices, and to finish them in a tradesman-like manner b. We have seen that a contract for the sale of growing crops is within the 17th section. But whether a contract for the sale of stock falls within the statute, is rather doubtful. In one instance all the judges were divided in opinion upon this point. It is now settled, that a sale by auction is within the seventeenth section of the statute of frauds; though it was in one case considered otherwise f. But a contract to procure goods, and carry them, is not within the statute. As where the plaintiff agreed by parol, that if the defendant would employ his ship to carry corn, he would procure him coals at A., and convey them to B., at a stipulated price; it was held not to be within the statute 8. Where a person at one time purchases several articles at separate prices, none of them singly amounting to 101., but together exceeding that sum, questions have arisen whether it be an entire contract for all, or separate contracts for each; if the former, the statutes apply, if the latter, they do not. Upon this point no general rule can be collected from the decisions; every case must be decided upon its own peculiar circum stances. Where the defendant, at a public auction, purchased twentyseven lots of turnips severally, but not consecutively, the price of no single lot amounting to 10., the court held, that each lot was a distinct contract, and therefore not within the statute h. So where the defendant purchased of a traveller of the plaintiff's a cask of cream of tartar, and offered to pur chase two chests of lac dye at a certain price, and the traveller said that the price was too low, but that if he did not write to the defendant in a day or two he might have it; the traveller did not write, but afterwards sent the cream of tartar and the lac dye; the court held, that the contracts were distinct, for it could not be considered as an entire or joint order, if as to one article the vendor was to have an option and time for consideration a. "Had But where the defendant purchased various articles at a linendraper's shop, and a separate price was agreed upon for each, no article being of the price of 10l., and he desired an account of the whole to be sent to his house, and a bill, amounting to 70l., was accordingly sent; the court held it to be one entire contract for the whole of the articles. the entire value," said Bayley, J., "been set upon the whole together, there cannot be a doubt of its being a contract for a greater amount than 10%., within the meaning of the seventeenth section; and I think that the circumstance of a separate price being fixed upon each article, makes no such difference as will take the case out of the operation of that law." Holroyd, J. :- "At first it appears to be a contract for goods of less value than 107.; but in course of dealing, it grew into a contract for a much larger amount. At last, therefore, it was one entire contract within the meaning and mischief of the statute of frauds, it being the intention of that statute, that where the contract, either at the commencement or at the conclusion, amounted to or exceeded the value of 10l., it should not bind, unless the requisites there mentioned were complied with." b : Where A. agreed to supply B. with a quantity of turnip seed, and B. agreed to sow it on his own land, and sell the crop of seed produced there from to A. at 1. 1s. the Winchester bushel; and the seed so produced, at the price agreed upon, exceeded in value the sum of 10.; the court held, that the contract was within the statute, and void for want of a memorandum in writing . A sale of goods for more than 107, by • Price r. с Watts v. Friend, 10 B. & C. 446. |