It is essential that the memorandum be signed by "the party to be charged," or some other person by him lawfully authorized.45 As to whether it must have been signed by the party seeking to enforce it, there is some conflict. Probably all courts hold that it need not be so signed if the consideration given by the party suing is executed. The conflict is where there are mutual promises. Some courts hold in these cases that the contract, not being enforceable against the party who has not signed it, is void for want of mutuality.46 Most courts hold that the statute is satisfied if the memorandum is signed by the party against whom it is sought to be enforced.47

Brewer v. Horst & Lachmund Co., 127 Cal. 643, 60 Pac. 418, 50 L. R. A. 240. But see Potter v. Peters, 72 L. J. Rep. 624. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 118; Cent. Dig. § 264.

43 Where a person issued a prospectus of illustrations of Shakspeare, to be published on terms of subscription therein set out, and A. entered his name in a book entitled "Shakspeare Subscribers, their Signatures," in the publisher's shop, and afterwards refused to subscribe, it was held that there was no sufficient reference to connect the subscription book with the prospectus, so as to make a memorandum. Boydell v. Drummond, 11 East, 142. And see Peirce v. Corf, L. R. 9 Q. B. 210; Taylor v. Smith, 61 Law J. Q. B. 331; Morton v. Dean, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 3S5; O'Donnell v. Leeman, 43 Me. 158, 69 Am. Dec. 54; Doughty v. Manhattan Brass Co., 101 N. Y. 644, 4 N. E. 747; North v. Mendel, 73 Ga. 400, 54 Am. Rep. 879; Oliver v. Insurance Co., 82 Ala. 417, 2 South. 445; One v. Cook, 31 111. 238; Duff v. Hopkins (D. C.) 33 Fed. 599; Coombs v. Wilkes, [1891] 3 Ch. 77; Andrew v. Babcock, 63 Conn. 109, 26 Atl. 715. A contract for the sale of land, containing no description of it, was held insufficient, though there was a description of land on the back of the paper, there being no words to connect the indorsement with the contract. Wilstach v. Heyd, 122 Ind. 574, 23 N. E. 963. Reciprocal wills not referring to each other. Hale v. Hale, 90 Va. 728, 19 S. E. 739. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 118; Cent. Dig. § 264.

44Long v. Miller, 4 C. P. Div. 450; Oliver v. Insurance Co., 82 Ala. 417, 2 South. 445; Beckwith v. Talbot, 95 U. S. 289, 24 L. Ed. 496; Peck v. Vande-mark, 99 N. Y. 29, 1 N. E. 41; Work v. Cowhick, 81 111. 317; Lee v. Butler, 167 Mass. 426, 46 N. E. 52, 57 Am. St. Rep. 466. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 118; Cent. Dig. § 264.

45 Sanborn v. Sanborn, 7 Gray (Mass.) 142; Cloud v. Greasley, 125 111. 313, 17 N. E. 826; Rafferty v. Lougee, 63 N. H. 54; Bailey v. Ogden, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 399, 3 Am. Dec. 509; Guthrie v. Anderson, 47 Kan. 383, 28 Pac. 104; Id., 49 Kan. 416, 30 Pac. 459; McElroy v. Seery, 61 Md. 389, 48 Am. Rep. 110; Moore v. Powell, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 43, 25 S. W. 472. Cf. Gardels v. Kloke, 36 Neb. 493, 54 N. W. 834. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 115; Cent. Dig. §§ 2J,2-250.

46 Wilkinson v. Heavenrich, 58 Mich. 574, 26 N. W. 139, 55 Am. Rep. 708; Corbitt v. Gaslight Co., 6 Or. 405, 25 Am. Rep. 541; Krohn v. Bantz, 68 lnd.

The signature may be by mark 48 or initials,49 or it may be typewritten,50 printed, stamped, or engraved.51 Nor need the signature be placed at the end of the document as a formal signature. If the name of the party tobe charged appear in the memorandum, so as to be applicable to the whole substance of the writing, and was written by himself, or by his authorized agent, it is immaterial where the name appears, whether at the top or at the bottom, or whether it is merely mentioned in the body of the memorandum." Where, however, the statute requires the memorandum to be "subscribed," it has been held that there must be a formal signature at the bottom of the memorandum.58

277; Stiles v. McClellan, 6 Colo. 89. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 115; Cent. Dig. §§ 21,2-250.

47 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; Justice v. Lang, 42 N. Y. 493, 1 Am. Rep. 576; Reuss v. Picksley, L. R. 1 Exch. 342; Clason's Ex'rs v. Bailey, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 487; Old Colony R. Co. v. Evans, 6 Gray (Mass.) 25, 66 Am. Dec. 394; Love v. Welch, 97 N. C. 200, 2 S. E. 242; Williams v. Robinson, 73 Me. 186, 40 Am. Rep. 352; Oliver v. Insurance Co., 82 Ala. 417, 2 South. 445; J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 16 Or. 381, 18 Pae. 641; Smith's Appeal, 69 Pa. 481; Anderson v. Harold, 10 Ohio, 399; Ives v. Hazard, 4 R. I. 14, 67 Am. Dec. 500; Hodges v. Rowing, 58 Conn. 12, 18 Atl. 979, 7 L. R. A. 87; Perkins v. Hadsell, 50 111. 217; Gartrell v. Stafford, 12 Neb. 545, 11 N. W. 732, 41 Am. Rep. 767; Cunningham v. Williams, 43 Mo. App. 629; Scott v. Glenn, 97 Cal. 513, 32 Pac. 573; Jones v. Davis, 48 X. J. Eq. 493, 21 Atl. 1035; 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.) i 115; Cent. Dig. §§ 242-250.

48 Baker v. Dening, 8 Adol. & E. 94; Zacharie v. Franklin, 12 Pet. 151, 9 L. Ed. 1035; Brown v. Bank, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 443, 41 Am. Dec. 755. See "Frauds, Statute of;" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 115; Cent. Dig. §§ 242-250.

49 Sanborn v. Flagler, 9 Allen (Mass.) 474; Salmon Falls Mfg. Co. v. God-dard, 14 How. 447, 14 L. Ed. 493; Palmer v. Stephens, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 471. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 115; Cent. Dig. §§ 242-250.

50 Garton Toy Co. v. Buswell Lumber & Mfg. Co., 150 Wis. 341, 136 N. W. 147. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 115; Cent. Dig. §§ 21,2-250.

51 Bennett v. Brumfitt, L. R. 3 C. P. 30; Drury v. Young, 58 Md. 546, 42 Am. Rep. 343; Schneider v. Norris, 2 Maule & S. 286; Weston v. Myers, 33 111. 424. See "Frauds, Statute of" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 115; Cent. Dig. §$ 21,2-250.

52 Davis v. Shields, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 341, 353; Coddington v. Goddard, 16 Gray (Mass.) 444; Caton v. Caton, L. R. 2 H. L. 127; Clason's Ex'rs v. Bailey, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 484; Boardman v. Spooner, 13 Allen (Mass.) 358, 90 Am. Dec. 196; Penniman v. Hartsborn, 13 Mass. 87; Evans v. Hoare [1892] 1 Q. B. 593; Braley v. Kelly, 25 Minn. 160; Tingley v. Boom Co., 5 Wash. 644, 32 Pae 737, 33 Pac. 1053. See "Frauds, Statute of" Dec. Dig. (Key-No) i 115; Cent. Dig. §§ 242-250.

A party to a contract may sign a rough draft of its terms, and acknowledge his signature when the draft has been corrected, and the contract is actually concluded.54