The various statutes of frauds do not necessarily require a formal contract, but permit a memorandum of the contract signed by the party to be charged thereby. Any memorandum, however, informal, is adequate if the agreement is stated with sufficient clearness.3 In McManus vs. Boston,4 it was held that the record of a board of street commissioners acting on a subject over which it had power was a sufficient memorandum, within the statute of frauds, the Court saying that: 'The recorded vote of a Corporation, or of a Committee acting upon a subject over which the Committee has power is a sufficient memorandum."5

1 20 Cyc, 279; Crawford vs. Jones,

54 Ala., 459; Michels vs. West 109 I11. App., 418.

2 E. g., Wisconsin and Missouri.

3 Davenport First Presb. Church vs. Swanson, 100 I11. App., 39; Lash vs. Parlin, 78 Mo., 391; Simonson vs. Kissick, 4 Daly, 143. 4 171 Mass., 152; 50 N. E., 607.

5 Citing Chase vs. Lowell, 7 Gray, 33; Johnson vs. Socity, 11 Allen, 407; Townsend vs. Har-graves, 118 Mass., 325, 335; Tufts vs. Mining Co., 14 Allen; Argus Co. vs. Mayor, etc., of City of Albany, 55 N. Y., 495; Grimes vs. Hamilton Co., 37 Iowa, 290; Marder vs. Champ-lin, 17 R. I., 423; 22 Atl., 938; Browne, St. Francis, Sec. 346.

The requirement for a memorandum may also be fulfilled by a bill or note. In Work vs. Cowhick,6 the defense set up was the statute of Frauds. The evidence on the question whether any memorandum in writing (such as required by the Statute of Frauds at the time of the bid) was made and signed by appellant, showed that immediately after the land in controversy was bid off by appellant, the administrator, the auctioneers and the appellant went to the office of Mr. Callan, who was doing the writing touching the sale made that day, and Callan proceeded to prepare a deed of the premises to appellant, which was signed by the administrator and left by him in Callan's hands, to be handed to appellant when she should have signed the notes and the surety should have signed it, and when she should have signed the mortgage; and appellant, at the same time, signed a note for the amount bid, and that was left in Callan's hands. The business was not consummated, for the reason that appellant was not at that time ready to produce the personal security to sign the note. Afterwards, she never brought forward any personal surety, nor in any other way did she complete the purchase.

The note thus drawn up at Callan's office, and signed by appellant, recited that she promised to pay Cowhick, administrator, etc., "for land purchased by Elizabeth Work, this day, at administrator's sale, the sum of $480," etc.

The deed signed by Cowhick and left with Callan described the land bid for fully.

In its decision the Court said: "These witnesses having testified in the presence of the court below; and the court having found for plaintiff, the majority of the court are not disposed to disturb the finding, and are of opinion that the proof shows that the requirements of the statute are shown to have complied with; that the making of the deed and signing of the note may very properly be regarded as one transaction."

6 81 III.,317.

A bond7 or a receipt for money,8 may also be a sufficient memorandum.

A written acceptance of an oral offer may charge the acceptor,9 and on the other hand if a written offer is orally accepted the party making the offer may be bound.10 Even a letter 11 or a telegram12 may be a sufficient memorandum. An auctioneer's,13 or a banker's 14 memorandum is sufficient to bind both parties.

The memorandum must state the contract with such certainty that its terms can be ascertained therefrom, either directly or indirectly.15 A memorandum of a sale of land at auction is sufficient which contains the names of the vendor and the purchaser, the terms of the sale, the amount bid and paid, and a description of the land sufficient to enable the purchaser from the surrounding facts to identify and locate it.16

The parties must be shown in the memorandum, they cannot be left to be identified by parol.17

All different statutes of frauds require the contract to be signed by the party to be bound thereby, or his agent. A party not signing the memorandum cannot be charged on the contract; but in England and generally in the United States, the only signature made necessary by the statute is that of the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced.18

7 Cox vs. Cox, Peck, 443.

8 Williams vs. Morris, 95 U. S., 444;

Gordon vs. Collett, 102 N. C, 532; 9 S. E., 486.

9 Troy Fertilizer Co. vs. Logan, 96 Ala., 619.

10 Howe vs. Watson, 179 Mass., 30,

60 N. E., 415; McDonald vs. Fernold, 68 N. H., 171.

11 Linsley vs. Tibbals, 40 Conn.,

522 12 Brooks vs. Miller, 103 Ga., 712; Wills vs. Ross, 77 Ind., 1.

13 Doty vs. Wilder, 159 I11., 407;

Cleaves vs. Foss. 4 Me., 1. 14 Williams vs. Woods, 16 Md., 220. 15 Eppich vs. Clifford, 6 Cal., 493;

In re Robinson, 142 Cal., 152;

Turner vs. Lorillard Co., 100

Ga., 645, 28 S. E., 383. 16 Springer vs. Klensorge, 83 Mo.,

152. 17 Nichols vs. Johnson, 10 Conn., 192.