8The statutes relating to the sale of goods do not use this word, but a number of statutes relating to agreements in regard to land do. See supra, Sec. 567.

9Welford v. Beasely, 2 Atk. 503; Bailey v. Sweeting, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 843; Wilkinson c. Evans, L.R.1C.F. 407; Buxton v. Rust, L. R. 7 Ex. 1,279; Elliott v. Dean, Cab. & E. 283; Dewar v. Mintoft, [1912] 2 K. B. 373; Drury v. Young, 58 Md. 646, 42 Am. Rep. 343; Heideman v. Wolfstein, 12 Mo. App. 366; Cash v. Clark, 61 Mo. App. 636; Spencer-Turner Co. v. Robinson, 55 N. Y. Misc. 280,105 N. Y. S. 98; Poel v. Bnmswick-Balke-Collender Co., 159 App. Div. 365; 144 N. Y. 8. 725, Spiegel v. Lowanstein, 162 N. Y. App. D. 443, 147 N. Y. S. 655; Willis v. Imperial Underwear Co., 159 N. Y. S. 729; Louisville Varnish Co. v. Lorick, 29 S. C. 633, 8 S. E. 8; Martin v. Haub-ner, 26 Can. S. C. 142. See Westmoreland v. Carson, 76 Tex. 619, 13 8. W. 559.

10 Grant v. New Departure Mfg. Co., 85 Conn. 421, 83 Atl. 212 (contract not to be performed within a yew).

11 Moore v. Hart, 1 Vera. 110; Ay-liffe v. Tracy, 2 P. Wms. 65; Owen p. Thomas, 3 Myl. & K. 353; Gibson v. Holland, L. R. 1, C. P 1; Beckwith v. Clark, 188 Fed. 171, 110 C. C. A. 207; Woodruff Oil Ac. Co. v. Portsmouth Ac. Co., 246 Fed. 375, 158 C. C. A. 439; Moss v. Atkinson, 44 Cal. 3; Jacobson v. Hendricks, 83 Conn. 120, 75 Atl. 85; Spangler v. Danforth, 65 111. 152; Wood v. Davis, 82 111. 311; Gaines v. McAdam, 79 111. App. 201; Fugate v. Hansford's Ex., 2 Litt. 262; Kleeman v. Collins, 9 Bush, 460; Drury v. Young, 58 Md. 546, 552, 42 Am. Rep. 343; Townsend v. Hargraves, 118 Mass. 325, 335; Moore v. Mountoaatle, 61 Mo. 424; Truskett v. Rice Bros. Live Stock, etc., Co. (Mo. App.), 180 S. W. 1048; Cunningham v. Williams, 43 Mo. App. 629; Cash v. Clark, 61 id. 636; Marks v. Cowdin, 226 N. Y. 138, 123 N. E. 139, 141; Misell v. Burnett, 4 Jones L. 249; Nicholson v. Dover, 145 N. C. 18, 58 S. E. 444, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 167; Lee v. Cherry, 85 Term. 707, 4 S. W. 835, 4 Am. St. Rep. 800; Kesrby v. Hopkins, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 166, 36 S. W. 506; Singleton v. Hill, 91 Wis. 51, 64 N. W. 588. But see the contrary decisions: First Bank v. Sowles, 46 Fed. Rep. 731; Steel v. Fife, 48 Iowa, 99,30 Am. Rep. 388; Morrow v. Moore, 96 Me. 373,57 Atl. 81, 99 Am. St. Rep. 410; Kinloch v. Savage, Speers' Eq. 464; Buck v. Pickwell, 27 Vt. 157,167.

12 Alford v. Wilson, 95 Ky. 506, 28 8. W. 539 (land); Allen v. Stailey (Ky.), 119 S. W. 755 (land); Druiy v. Young, 68 Md. 546, 42 Am. Rep. 343 (goods); Johnson v. McCue, 34 Fa. St. 180 (agreement to devise.) See also Wit-man v. Reading, 191 Pa. St. 134, 43 Atl. 140 (land). An undelivered deed under this rule has been held a sufficient memorandum. Jenkins v. Harrison, 66 Ala. 345; Johnson v. Jones, 85 Ala. 286, 4 So. 748; Oriel v. Lomax, 89 Atl. 420, 6 So. 741; Ryder v. Johnson, 153 Ala. 482, 45 So. 181; Shelinsky p. Foster, 87 Conn. 90,87 Arl 35; Ames v. Ames, 46 Ind. App. 597, 91 N. E, 509 (land); Cannon v. Handley, 72 Calif. 133, 144, 13 Pac. 315 (cf. Holland v. McCarthy, 173 Calif. 597, 160 Pac. 1069); Hart v. Carroll, 85 Pa. St. 508; Bowles p. Woodson, 6 Gratt. 78; Parrill v. McKinley, 9 Gratt. 1, 58 Am. Dec. 212. See also Barr v. Johnson, 102 Ark. 377, 144 S. W. 527; Kopp v. Reiter, 146 111. 437, 34 N. E. 942, 22 L. R. A. 273, 37 Am. St. Rep. 156; Schneider v. Anderson, 75 Kans. 11, 88 Pac. 625, 121 Am. St. 356; Thayer v. Luce, 22 Ohio St 62; Cooper v. Thomason, 30 Or. 161, 174, 45 Pac. 296; Campbell v. Thomas, 42 Wis. 437, 24 Am. Rep. 427; Popp p. Swanke, 68 Wis. 364, 31 N. W. 916. See also Lithograph Bldg. Co. v. Watt, 96 Ohio St. 74,117 N. E. 25; or a letter of acceptance, mailed but never received. Van Boskerck v. Torbert, 1S4 Fed. 419, 107 C. C. A. 383. Sec also decisions holding corporation records sufficient, supra, Sec. 568. But if a deed is made to an assignee of the promisee at the latter's request it is insufficient to render enforceable the contract between promisor and promisee. Barr v. Johnson, 102 Ark. 477, 144 S. W. 527. 13 Remington v. Linthicum, 14 Pet. 84, 93, 10 L. Ed. 364; Steel v. Fife, 48 Iowa, 99, 30 Am. Rep. 388; New-burger v. Adams, 92 Ky. 26, 17 S. W. 162 (but see McBrayer v. Cohen, 92 Ky. 479, 18 S. W. 123; Alford v. Wilson, 95 Ky. 506, 26 S. W. 539); Dickinson v. Wright, 56 Mich. 42, 22 N. W. 312; Cheeebrough v. Pingree, 72 Mich. 438, 40 N. W. 747; Johnson v. Brook, 31 Miss. 17, 66 Am. Dee. 547; Montauk Assoc. v. Daly, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 101, affd., without opinion, 171 N. Y. 659, 63 N. E. 1119; Grant v. Levan, 4 Pa. St. 393. See also Callanan v. Chapin, 158 Mass. 113, 117, 32 N. E. 941. Accordingly in such jurisdictions an undelivered deed is insufficient, not only as a conveyance, but as a memorandum of a contract to oonvey. Preeland v Chamley, 80 Ind. 132, 134; Steel v. Fife, 48 Iowa, 99, 30 Am. Rep. 388; Logsdon v. Newton, 64 Iowa, 448, 6 N. W. 715; Richardson v. Isaacs (Ky.), U8S. W. 1003;Morrow v. Moore, 98 Me. 373, 57 Atl. 81, 99 Am. St. Rep. 410; Merriam v. Leonard, Cush. 151; Parker v. Parker, I Gray, 409; Ducett v. Wolf, 81 Mich. 311, 45 N. W. 829; Kroll v. Diamond Match Co., 113 Mich. 196, 71 N. W. 630; similar question arises in regard to the sufficiency of a written offer to constitute a memorandum, for at the time that such a writing is made, the writer does not deliver the writing as then binding him. The obligation does not arise until the offer is accepted. The writing, therefore, cannot have been delivered as a memorandum of a contract; but it is generally held that such an offer, though accepted orally, satisfies the statute.14

Comer v. Baldwin, 16 Minn. 172; Johnson v. Brook, 31 Miss. 17, 66 Am. Deo. 647; Wier p. Batdorf, 24 Neb. 83, 38 N. W. 22; Sowiud v. Moss, 59 Neb. 71, 80 N. W. 268; Schneider v. Vogter (Neb.), 97 N. W. 1018; Brown p. Brown, 33 N. J. Eq. 650; Cogger v. Lansing, 43 N. Y. 550; Allebach v. Godahalk, 116 Pa. St. 329, 9 Atl. 444. See also Henderson c. Beard, 51 Ark. 483, 11 S. W. 766; Swain p. Buraette, 89 Cal. 564,26 Pac. 1093; Sullivan!-. O'Neal, 66 Tex. 433, 1 S. W. 186. So an undelivered will. In re McGinley's Est.,257 Fa. 478, 101 Atl. 807.

In Lowther p. Potter, 197 Fed. 196, the court, while conceding that an undelivered writing might be a valid memorandum, held that an undelivered deed which contained no recital of a previous contract, could not be. If a deed is delivered in escrow, the terms of the delivery may everywhere be shown by parol. Manning v. Foster, 49 Wash. 641, 96 Pac. 233,18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 337 and note. Moore v. Ward, 71 W. Va. 393,76 S. E. 807,43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 390.

14 Egerton v. Mathews, 6 East, 307 (goods); BToadly v. M'Laine, 10 Bing. 482 (goods); Reuss v. Pickaley, L. R. 1 Ex. 342 (promise not to be performed within year); Stewart v. Ed-dowes, L. R. 9 C. P. 211 (goods); Cradle v. Warner, 140 111. 123, 29 N. E. 1118 (land); Schuster p. Whitham, 146 Ia. 64, 124 N. W. 763 (goods); Doherty p. Hill, 144 Mass. 465,11 N. E. 681 (land); Lydig p. Braman, 177 Mass. 212, 218, 58 N. E. 696 (goods); Howe p. Watson, 179 Mass. 30, 60 N. E. 415

(promise to will property); Austrian p. Springer, 94 Mich. 343, 54 N. W. 50, 34 Am. St. Rep. 350 (goods); Kessler p. Smith, 42 Minn. 494, 44 N. W. 794 (goods); Waul p. Kirkman,

27 Miss. 823 (promise to pay debt of another); Willis v Ellis, 98 Miss. 197, 63 So. 498; lash v. Parlin, 78 Mo. 391 (goods); McAusland p. Rieser, 82 N. J. Eq. 614, 90 Atl. 261; Argus Co. p. Albany, 55 N. Y. 495, 14 Am. Rep. 296 (promise not to be performed within a year); Mason p. Decker, 72 N. Y. 695, 28 Am. Rep. 190 (goods); Bristol c. Mente, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 67 (goods); Fox p. Hawkins, 150 N. Y. App. Div.801,135 N. Y. S. 245 (land); Thayer v. Luce, 22 Ohio St. 62 (land); Himrod Co. p. Cleveland Co., 22 Ohio St. 451 (promise not to be performed within a year); Cameron Coal &. Mercantile Co. v. Universal Metal Co., 26 Okl. 615, 110 Pac. 720, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 618; Friendly p. Elwert, 57 Or. 599,105 Pac. 404; Lee p. Cherry, 85 Tenn. 707, 4 S. W. 835, 4 Am. St Rep. 800 (land); Bailey p. Leishman, 32 Utah, 123, 89 Pac. 78 (goods); Lotrber p. Connit, 36 Wis. 176 (land); Hnwkin-son v. Harmon, 69 Wis. 551, 35 N. W.

28 (goods). But see contra, Banks p. Harris Mfg. Co., 20 Fed. 667 (goods); Cable Co. p. Hancock, 2 Ga. App. 73, 58 S. E. 319 (goods); Wilkerson p. Patton Sash, etc., Co. 10 Ga. App. 697, 73 S. E. 1088; McGhee Cotton Co. p. Herrine, 10 Ga. App. 700, 74 S. E. 66; American Leather Co. v. Porter, 94 Iowa, 117, 62 N. W. 658 (goods). Even a lapsed written offer which had been orally renewed was

Under statutes which require the "contract" to be in writing, a written offer has been held in some cases, not without reason, insufficient.15 A written instruction to an agent to make an offer is not a sufficient memorandum of an oral contract which the agent thereafter makes in accordance with the instruction.16 The question already considered of acceptance and receipt made under a mistake may also be referred to for analogy in connection with the questions dealt with in this section.17