In England the term "goods, wares, and merchandises" has been limited to corporeal movable property, and is held not to include shares of stock, choses in action, and other incorporeal rights and property,17 and the courts of some of our states have taken the same view.18 In other states it is held that shares of stock, promissory notes, bonds, and the like, are "goods, wares, and merchandise." 19 It has also been held that a sale of book accounts,20 or of land scrip,21 is within the statute, but not an agreement for sale of an interest in an invention before letters patent are obtained.22 In some states the statute uses the words "personal property," and these would, of course, apply to choses in action.28 In other states the statute expressly mentions choses in action.

14 HEINTZ v. BURKHARD, 29 Or. 55, 43 Pac. 866, 31 L. R. A. 508, 54 Am. St. Rep. 777, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 94. Goddard v. Binney, 115 Mass. 450, 15 Am. Rep. 112; Lamb v. Crafts, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 353; Mixer v. How-arth, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 205, 32 Am. Dec. 256; Atwater v. Hough, 29 Conn. 509, 79 Am. Dec. 229; Crockett v. Scribner, 64 Me. 447; Edwards v. Railroad Co., 48 Me. 379; Finney v. Apgar, 31 N. J. Law, 267; Central Lith. & E. Co. v. Moore, 75 Wis. 170, 43 N. W. 1124, 6 L. R. A. 788, 17 Am. St. Rep. 186; Brown & Haywood Co. v. Wunder, 64 Minn. 450, 67 N. W. 357, 32 L. R. A. 593; Bauscher v. Gies, 160 Mich. 502, 125 N. W. 420; Moore v. Camden Marble & Granite Works, 80 Ark. 274, 96 S. W. 1063, 117 Am. St Rep. 87, 10 Ann. Cas. 308. See, also, Mechanical Boiler-Cleaner Co. v. Kellner, 62 N. J. Law, 544, 43 Atl. 599. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 83; Cent. Dig. §§ 147-153.

15 Parsons v. Loucks, 48 N. T. 17, 8 Am. Rep. 517; Cooke v. Millard, 65 N. Y. 352, 22 Am. Rep. 619; Deal v. Maxwell, 51 N. Y. 652; Higgins v. Murray, 73 N. Y. 252; Alfred Shrimpton & Sons v. Dworsky, 2 Misc. Rep. 123, 21 N. Y. Supp. 461; Eichelberger v. McCauley, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 213, 9 Am. Dec. 514; Rentch v. Long, 27 Md. 188. And see Wallace v. Dowling, 86 S. C. 307, 68 S. E. 571, 138 Am. St. Rep. 1054. A contract to paint a portrait is not within the statute. Turner v. Mason, 65 Mich. 662, 32 N. W. 846. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § S3; Cent. Dig. §§ 147-158.

16 Mighell v. Dougherty, 86 Iowa, 480, 53 N. W. 402, 17 L. R. A. 755, 41 Am. St. Rep. 511. In some states the statute expressly excepts goods to be manufactured. Flynn v. Dougherty, 91 Cal. 669, 27 Pac. 1080, 14 L. R. A. 230. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 81, 83; Cent. Dig. §§ 140, 147-153.

17 Humble v. Mitchell, 11 Adol. & E. 205. And see Pickering v. Appleby, Comyn, 354. See "Frauds. Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 82; Cent. Dig. §§ 143-1J,6.

As we have already seen, "fructus industriales" are not an interest in land, within the fourth section.24 They are chattels, but it is an open question whether they are "goods, wares, and merchandises," within the seventeenth section.25 So, also, a sale of "fructus naturales," or the natural growth of land, not being of an interest in land where title is not to pass until after severance, is regarded as within the seventeenth section. Some courts, indeed, hold this to be so though title is to pass before severance.26 The question, however, is intricate, and the authorities conflicting, and it cannot be properly treated at any length in an elementary work on contracts.

18 Whittemore v. Gibbs, 24 N. H. 484; Vawter v. Griffin, 40 Ind. 593; Webb v. Railroad Co., 77 Md. 92, 26 Atl. 113, 39 Am. St. Rep. 396. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 82; Cent. Dig. §§ 143-146.

19 Tisdale v. Harris, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 9; Boardrnan v. Cutter, 128 Mass. 388; BALDWIN v. WILLIAMS, 3 Metc. (Mass.) 365, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 92; Gooch v. Holmes, 41 Me. 523; Hudson v. Weir, 29 Ala. 294; Pray v. Mitchell, 60 Me. 430; North v. Forest, 15 Conn. 400; Hinchman v. Lincoln, 124 U. S. 38, 8 Sup. Ct. 369, 31 L. Ed. 337; Bernhardt v. Walls, 29 Mo. App. 206; Greenwood v. Law, 55 N. J. Law, 168, 26 Atl. 134, 19 L. R. A. 688; Meehan v. Sharp, 151 Mass. 564, 24 N. E. 907; Sprague v. Hosie, 155 Mich. 30, 118 N. W. 497, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874, 130 Am. St Rep. 558. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 82; Cent. Dig. §§ 143-146.

20Walker v. Supple, 54 Ga. 178. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 82; Cent. Dig. §§ 143-146.

21Smith v. Bouck, 33 Wis. 19. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 82; Cent. Dig. §§ 143-146.

22 Somerby v. Buntin, 118 Mass. 279, 19 Am. Rep. 459: Blakeney v. Goode, 30 Ohio St. 350. But see Jones v. Reynolds, 120 N. Y. 213, 24 N. E. 279. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 82; Cent. Dig. §§ 143-146.

23 Southern Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Cole, 4 Fla. 359. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 82; Cent. Dig. §§ 11,3-11,6.

24Ante. p. 94.

25 See Tiffany, Sales, 48, and cases cited. 26 Ante, p. 94.

Same - Acceptance And Receipt

56. To satisfy this exception there must be both

(a) Acceptance, which in this country means assent by the buyer that the goods are to be taken by him in performance of the contract, and

(b) Receipt, or the taking of possession of the goods by the buyer with the seller's consent, either by actual delivery or by agreement.

Acceptance and receipt are distinct, and to satisfy this exception both are essential.27 Acceptance may precede receipt,28 or vice versa,29 and both may be subsequent to the contract of sale.30 Their effect is to prove that there is a contract, the terms of which may then be proved by parol.31 Acceptance and receipt of a part, however small, is sufficient.32