The statute does not require that the contract itself be reduced to writing. A valid oral contract may exist, but if it is within the statute of frauds it may not be enforced for the want of written evidence by which alone it may be proved.6

For this reason the memorandum or note may be made at any time between the formation of the contract and the commencement of an action thereon.7 The writing need not be intended as a formal contract,8 nor, in fact, is it required to be in any particular form.9 All that is required is written evidence of the agreement, and therefore the memorandum may consist of letters written by the party to be charged to his own agent, or to other third persons.10 The memorandum may even consist of entries made by the party to be charged on his or his agent's books;11 and entries in the records of a corporation may prove a contract by it.12 So, also, resolutions of a city council may be a sufficient memorandum of a contract by it on behalf of the city.13 A telegram may be a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute and charge the party by whom it is sent.1* Even recitals in a will have been held sufficient evidence of a contract by the testator to answer for the debts of his son.15

Pac. 825; Hudgins v. State, 126 Ga. 639, 55 S. E. 492. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 44; Cent. Dig. § 66.

6 ULLSPERGER v. MEYER, 217 111. 262, 75 N. E. 4S2, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 221, 3 Ann. Cas. 1032, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 74. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 108, 106; Cent. Dig. §§ 193-210.

7 Lerned v. Wannemacher, 9 Allen (Mass.) 412; Gale v. Nixon, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 445; Sheeny v. Fulton, 38 Neb. 691, 57 N. W. 395, 41 Am. St. Rep. 767. But not after the action is commenced. Bill v. Bament, 9 Mees. & W. 36; Lucas v. Dixon, 22 Q. B. Div. 357; Bird v. Munroe, 66 Me. 337, 22 Am. Rep. 571. But see post, p. 103, note 17. It has been held in Illinois that an oral agreement in consideration of marriage is not taken out of the statute by being reduced to writing after marriage. McAnnulty v. McAnnulty, 120 111, 26, 11 N. E. 397, 60 Am. Rep. 552. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 104; Gent. Dig. § 209.

8 ULLSPERGER v. MEYER, 217 111. 262, 75 N. E. 482, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 221,

3 Ann. Cas. 1032, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 74. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 108, 106; Cent. Dig. §§ 192-210.

9 Atwood v. Cobb, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 230, 26 Am. Dec. 657. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 108; Cent. Dig. §§ 192-208.

10 Gibson v. Holland, L. R. 1 C. P. 1; Peabody v. Speyers, 56 N. Y. 230; Hollis v. Burgess, 37 Kan. 487, 15 Pac. 536; Lee v. Cherry, 85 Tenn. 707,

4 S. W. 835, 4 Am. St Rep. 800; Cunningham v. Williams, 43 Mo. App. 629;

A letter repudiating a verbal contract previously made by the writer may be sufficient.16 Some of the courts seem to hold that the admission of an oral contract in the pleadings in an action is a sufficient memorandum, but the decisions are no doubt based on the fact that the statute, not having been pleaded, is waived.17 However this may be, the contrary is the rule.18

Spangler v. Danforth, 65 111. 152; Moss v. Atkinson, 44 Cal. 3; North Platte Milling & Elevator Co. v. Price, 4 Wyo. 203, 33 Pac. 664; Nicholson v. Dover, 145 N. C. 18, 58 S. E. 444, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 167. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 103,106; Cent. Dig. §§ 192-208.

11 Johnson v. Dodgson, 2 Mees & W. 653; Clason's Ex'rs v. Bailey, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 4S4; Coddington v. Goddard, 16 Gray (Mass.) 436. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 103; Cent. Dig. §§ 192-208.

12 Tufts v. Mining Co., 14 Allen (Mass.) 407; McManus v. City of Boston, 171 Mass. 152, 50 N. E. 607 (record of board of street commissioners); Lam-kin v. Manufacturing Co., 72 Conn. 57, 47 Atl. 503, 1042, 44 L. R. A. 786. See "Frauds, Statute of" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 103; Cent. Dig. §§ 192-208.

13 Marden v. Champlin, 17 R. I. 423, 22 Atl.. 938; Argus Co. v. City of Albany, 55 N. Y. 495, 14 Am. Rep. 296; City of Greenville v. Waterworks Co., 125 Ala. 625, 27 South. 764. But see Wilhelm v. Fagan, 90 Mich. 6, 50 X. W. 1072. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 103; Cent. Dig. §§ 192-208.

14 Trevor v. Wood, 36 N. Y. 307, 93 Am. Dec. 511; Marschall v. Vineyard Co., 1 Misc. Rep. 511, 21 N. Y. Supp. 468; McElroy v. Buck, 35 Mich. 434; Little v. Dougherty, 11 Colo. 103, 17 Pac. 202; Everman v. Herndon (Miss.) 11 South. 652; Whaley v. Hinchman, 22 Mo. App. 483. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 103; Cent. Dig. §§ 192-208.

15 In re Hoyle, [1893] 1 Ch. 84. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 192; Cent. Dig. §§ 192-208.

16 LOUISVILLE ASPHALT VARNISH CO. v. LORICK, 29 S. C. 533, 8 S. E. 8, 2 L. R. A. 212, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, SO; Capitol City Brick Co. v. Atlanta Ice & Coal Co., 5 Ga. App. 436, 63 S. E. 562. See "Frauds, statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 103; Cent. Dig. §§ 192-208, 263.

17 Gregg v. Garrett, 13 Mont, 10, 31 Pac. 721; Lauer v. Mercantile Inst, 8 Utah, 305, 31 Pac. 397. See ante, p. 102, note 7; post, p. 120, notes 95, 96. Bee "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 103; Cent. Dig. §§ 192-208.

"Taylor v. Allen, 40 Minn. 433, 42 N. W. 292; Holler v. Richards, 102 N. C. 545, 9 S. E. 460; Barrett v. McAllister, 33 W. Va. 738, 11 S. E. 220; Browning v. Berry, 107 N. C. 231, 12 S. E. 105, 10 L. R. A. 726.. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 103; Cent. Dig. §§ 192-208.

Showing As To Agreement

The memorandum must show agreement on the part of the party sought to be charged; that is, it must show a concluded contract in so far as he is concerned.19 In most jurisdictions, where a written proposal has been made by the party sought to be charged, an acceptance by the other party may be established by parol evidence.20