Home >> Cyclopedia-of-law-vol-4 >> Acceptance Necessary To Complete to Partners Ex Emption >> Construction of the

Construction of the

Loading

CONSTRUCTION OF THE 4TH SECTION OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS. It is said that the form required by the statute is not nec essary to the existence of the contract but only to its proof. Hence the note in writing may be made at any time between the formation of the contract and the bringing of the action. And a draft made and signed by the proposer will be sufficient though the contract is concluded by a subsequent parol acceptance. (Anson on Cont. p. 55; Hardman v. Wolfstein, 12 Mo. App. 366.) The memorandum of the contract should men tion or designate the parties. (Grafton v. Cummings, 90 U. S. too; Dykes v. Townsend, 24 N. Y. 57.) Sev eral writings, though made at different times, may be construed together to satisfy the statute as to the signed memorandum. If part only of such writings are signed, reference must be made in these to those un signed unless it appears by comparison that they- re late to the same matter. That is, the several writings must be consistent, connected and complete. (Thayer v. Luce, 22 0. St. 62; North v. Mendel, 73 Ga. 400.) Whether the consideration must appear in the writ ing is a disputed question. The English rule is that it must, and this is followed in some of the American States. (Wain v. Warhers, 5 East. to; Sears v. Brink, 3 Johns. 210; Taylor v. Pratt, 3 Wis. 674.) Other States hold that the consideration need not be ex pressed. (Reed v. Evans, 17 Ohio 128; Sage v. Wil cox, 6 Conn. 81; Ashford v. Robison, 8 Ind. 305.) The memorandum must be signed by the party charged or his agent, it need not be signed by both parties. (McElroy v. Seerey, 61 Md. 389.) An auc tioneer, being the agent of both parties, may bind them by his signature, but his memorandum should be made at the time of the purchase. (Horton v. McCarty, 53 Me. 394.) The name may appear anywhere on the in strument, but must be for the purpose of authenticity. (Anderson v. Harrold, 10 Ohio 399.) The subject mat ter of the contract should be so described in the mem orandum that it can be identified. (Wood v. Davis, 82 III. 311.)

signed, contract and memorandum