The memorandum may consist in any number of letters, telegrams, or other pieces of paper.41 The papers, however, must be connected, consistent, and complete.

It is generally held that the connection between various papers must be made out from the papers themselves,42 and that it cannot v. Patton, 5 Cranch, 151, 3 L. Ed. 61 (construing the Virginia statute); Reed v. Evans, 17 Ohio, 128; Steadman v. Guthrie, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 147; Taylor v. Ross, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 330; Adkins v. Watson, 12 Tex. 199; Halsa v. Halsa, 8 Mo. 303; How v. Kemball, 2 McLean, 103, Fed. Cas. No. 6,748; Brown v. Fowler, 70 N. H. 211, 47 Atl. 412. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 108; Cent. Dig. §§ 214-221.

38 It is declared necessary in Alabama, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, and Wisconsin. But the amount of the consideration need not appear, and the words "for value received" are sufficient. Jansen v. Kuenzie, 145 Wis. 473, 130 N. W. 450, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1241. A guaranty of a note, written by a third person on the note before delivery, need express no consideration, since the guaranty requires no other consideration than that which the note on its face implies to have passed between the original parties. Moses v. Bank, 149 U. S. 298, 13 Sup. Ct 900, 37 L. Ed. 743 (under Alabama statute). Contra: Commercial Nat. Bank of Appleton v. Smith, 107 Wis. 574, 83 N. W. 766. It is otherwise if the guaranty is written after the note has been delivered and taken effect as a contract. Moses v. Bank, supra. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 108; Cent. Dig. §§ 214-221.

39 It is declared unnecessary in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Virginia. See Hayes v. Jackson, 159 Mass. 451, 34 N. E. 683. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 108; Cent. Dig. §§ 214-221.

40 See Drake v. Seaman, 97 N. Y. 230. And see ante, p. 106. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 108; Cent. Dig. §§ 214-221.

41 LOUISVILLE ASPHALT VARNISH CO. v. LORICK, 29 S. C. 533, 8 S. E. 8, 2 L. R. A. 212, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 80; Reuss v. Picksley, L. R. 1 Exch. 342; Ryan v. United States, 136 U. S. 83, 10 Sup. Ct 913, 34 L. Ed. 447; Hollis v. Burgess, 37 Kan. 487, 15 Pac. 536; Lee v. Cherry, 85 Tenn. 707, 4 S. W. 835, 4 Am. St. Rep. 800; Roehl v. Haumesser, 114 Ind. 311, 15 N. E. 345; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Settegast, 79 Tex. 256, 15 S. W. 228; Bayne v. Wiggins, 139 U. S. 210, 11 Sup. Ct. 521, 35 L. Ed. 144; Olson v. Sharpless, 53 Minn. 91, 55 N. W. 125; Schneider v. Anderson, 75 Kan. 11, 88 Pac. 525, 121 Am. St. Rep. 356. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 108; Cent. Dig. §§ 214-221.

42 If all the separate papers are signed, reference In the one to the other need not be made, if by inspection and comparison it appears that they form part of the same transaction. Thayer v. Luce, 22 Ohio St. 62. See, also, be shown by parol evidence.48 But, if one paper is referred to in another, it may be identified by parol evidence.44

To say that the papers must be consistent is merely to reiterate what was said in treating of offer and acceptance.