The memorandum of the contract must show who are the parties to it; not only who is the promisor, but who is the promisee as well. Thus, where a person promised that he would answer for the debt of a third person, and signed a memorandum to that effect, but the memorandum did not show the name of the promisee, it was held insufficient. "No document," it was said, "can be an agreement or memorandum of one, which does not show on its face who the parties making the agreement are." 21

A party need not be named, if he is sufficiently described; and the description will let in parol evidence to show his identity.22

19 Coe v. Tough, 116 N. Y. 273, 22 N. E. 550. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 106; Cent. Dig. §§ 193-211.

20 Reuss v. Picksley, L. R. 1 Exch. 342; Farwell v. Lowther, 18 111. 252; Gradle v. Warner, 140 111. 123, 29 N. E. 1118; Ehrmanntraut v. Robinson, 52 Minn. 333, 54 N. W. 188; Himrod Furnace Co. v. Railroad Co., 22 Ohio St. 451. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 106; Cent. Dig. §§ 193-211.

21 Williams v. Lake, 2 El. & El. 349. And see McConnell v. Brillhart, 17 111. 354, 65 Am. Dec. 661; McElroy v. Seery, 61 Md. 389, 48 Am. Rep. 110; Sherburne v. Shaw, 1 N. H. 157, 8 Am. Dec. 47; Grafton v. Cummings, 99 U. S. 100, 25 L. Ed. 366; McGovern v. Hern, 153 Mass. 308, 26 N. E. 861, 10 L. R. A. 815, 25 Am. St. Rep. 632; Lewis v. Wood, 153 Mass. 321, 26 N. E. 862, 11 L. R. A. 143; Coombs v. Wilkes [1891] 3 Ch. 77; Watt v. Cranberry Co., 63 Iowa, 730, 18 N. W. 898. A memorandum of a sale of goods, which does not clearly show which party is vendor and which vendee, is not sufficient. Frank v. Eltringham, 65 Miss. 281, 3 South. 655; Bailey v. Ogden, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 399, 3 Am. Dec. 509. But see Newell v. Radford, L. R. 3 C. P. 52; Salmon Falls Mfg. Co. v. Goddard, 14 How. 446, 14 L. Ed. 493; Thornton v. Kelly, 11 R. I. 498. An auctioneer's memorandum of a sale of land must show who the vendor is. O'sullivan v. Overton, 56 Conn. 102, 14 Atl. 300; Mentz v. Newwitter, 122 N. Y. 491, 25 N. E. 1044, 11 L. R. A. 97, 19 Am. St. Rep. 514. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 107, 158; Cent. Dig. §§ 212, 213, 375.

22 Sale v. Lambert, 18 Eq. 1; Fessenden v. Mussey, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 127; Lerned v. Johns, 9 Allen (Mass.) 419; Catling v. King, 5 Ch. Div. 660; Thornton v. Kelly, 11 R. I. 498; Violett v. Powell's Adm'r, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 347, 52 Am. Dec. 548; Dykers v. Townsend, 24 N. Y. 57; Jones v. Dow, 142 Mass. 130, 7 N. E. 839. Where a defendant had directed his factor to sell goods, and to use a fictitious name to represent him as seller, and the fictitious name was inserted in the factor's memorandum, parol evidence was held admissi-

Where A. in his own name enters into a contract as the agent of B., the other party to the contract may show by parol evidence that he really contracted with B., who has been described in the memorandum in the character of A.23