The memorandum may be signed by the duly authorized agent of the party to be charged.56 The agent must not be the other contracting party, but some third person, for to allow otherwise would be to open the door for the fraud which the statute was intended to prevent.66

The same person, however, as, for example a broker, may act as agent for both parties.57 So in cases of sales at auction, the auctioneer, acting only as such, is the competent agent of both parties, and his memorandum is binding on both. He is the agent of the vendor by virtue of his employment, and he is made the agent of the vendee by the act of the latter in giving him his bid, and receiving the announcement that the property is knocked off to him as purchaser.58 This, however, does not apply where the vendor is himself the auctioneer.59 The memorandum must be made at the time of the sale.60

53 Davis v. Shields, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 341. And see James v. Patten, 6 N. Y. 9, 55 Am. Dec. 376; Champlin v. Parrish, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 405. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 115; Cent. Dig. §§ 242-250.

54 Stewart v. Eddowes, L. R. 9 C. P. 314. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 115; Cent. Dig. §§ 242-250.

55 Heffron v. Armsby, 61 Mich. 505, 28 N. W. 672; Tynan v. Dullnig (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 4G5. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) | 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 251-260; "Principal and Agent," Cent. Dig. § S80.

56 Bent v. Cobb, 9 Gray (Mass.) 397, 69 Am. Dec. 295. And see Sherman v. Brandt, L. R. 6 Q. B. 720; Farebrother v. Simmons, 5 Barn. & Ald. 333; Carlisle v. Campbell, 76 Ala. 247; Drury v. Young, 58 Md. 546, 42 Am. Rep. 343. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 251-260.

57 Ankeny v. Young Bros., 52 Wash. 235, 100 Pac. 736. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 251-260.

58 Bent v. Cobb, 9 Gray (Mass.) 397, 69 Am. Dec. 295; Trustees of First Baptist Church of Ithaca v. Bigelow, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 28; Morton v. Dean, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 385; McBrayer v. Cohen (Ky.) 18 S. W. 123; Meadows v. Meadows, 3 McCord (S. C.) 458, 15 Am. Dec. 645; Singstack's Ex'rs v. Harding, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 186, 7 Am. Dec. 669. See Wyckoff v. Mickle (N. J. Cm) 20 Atl. 214. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 251-260.

59 Bent v. Cobb, 9 Gray (Mass.) 397, 69 Am. Dec. 295. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 251-260.

60 Gill v. Bicknell, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 355; Horton v. McCarty, 53 Me. 394. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 251-260.

As we have already seen, if the agent signs his own name, the other party to the contract may show by parol that he really contracted with the principal.61 The agent, however, after making the' contract in his own name, cannot show by parol that he is not the real party to the contract.62

Unless the statute expressly so requires, the authority of the agent need not be in writing.63 In some states, however, the statute does so require in the case of certain contracts, as contracts relating to land,64 or contracts of suretyship.65