Under the English statute it is settled that choses in action are not included within the terms " goods, wares, and merchandises." This is true even though the chose in action in question is evidenced by a tangible document, as a certificate of stock.59 In the United States, under statutes similar to the English original, shares of stock are held to be included.60 likewise a bond and mortgage are goods, wares and merchandise within the statutes in the United States;61 and bills and notes.62 But stock v. Pumell is Meyers p. Schemp, 67 111. 469. See, however, Keyser v. School District, 35 N. H. 477.

58 McLeod v. Clark, 110 Miss. 861, 71 So. 11.

59See as to shares of stock, Humble v. Mitchell, 11 A. A E. 205; Bradley p. Holdsworth, 3 M. A W. 422; Knight p. Barber, 16 M. A W. 66; Heseltine v. Siegers, 1 Ex. S56; Tempest p. Kilner, 3 C. B. 249; Bowlby v. Bell, 3 C. B. 284; Duncuft v. Albrecht, 12 Sim. 189. As to choses in action generally, Colonial Bank v. Whinney, 30 Ch. D. 261, 283; Benjamin on Sales (5th Eng. ed), 174. Compare Evans v. Davies, [1893] 2 Ch. 216.

60Snow Storm Min. Co. v. Johnson, 186 Fed 745, 108 C. C. A. 616; Stifft v. Stiewel, 91 Ark. 445,126 S. W. 1008, 18 Ann. Cas. S97; Russell v. Betts, 107 Ark. 629, 166 S. W. 457; Mayer p. Child, 47 Cat. 142, 144; North p. Forest, 15 Conn. 400; Do Numio v. De N'uniio, 90 Conn. 342, 97 Atl. 323; Bants, v. Chicago, 172 111. 204, 218, 50 N. E. 233, 40 L. R. A. 611; Pray p. Mitchell, 60 Me. 430; Colvin v. Williams, 3 H. A J. 38, 6 Am. Dec. 417; Tiadale v. Harris, 20 Pick. 9; Board-man v. Cutter, 128 Mass. 388; Fine p. Hornaby, 2 Mo. App. 61; Bernhardt p. Walls, 29 Mo. App. 206; Davis Laundry etc. Co. v. Whitman, 92 Ohio St.

44. 110 N. E. 518, Ann. Cas. 1917 C. 988; Hetraon v. Peterman Mfg. Co., 76 Wash. 600, 136 Pac. 1168, 61 L. R. A. (N. S.) 398, Ann. Cas. 1915 D. 346; Korrer p. Madden, 152 Wis. 646, 140 N. W. 325. Webb p. Baltimore, etc., R. R., 77 Md. 92, 26 Atl. 113, 32 Am. St. Rep. 396, follows the English decisions, and discredits a dictum to the contrary in - Colvin p. Williams, supra. See also Rogers v. Burr, 105 Ga. 432, 31 S. E. 438, 70 Am. St. Rep. 50. Cf. Meehan p. Sharp, 151 Mass. 664, 24 N. E. 507; Schaefer v. Strieder, 203 Mass. 467, 89 N. E. 618; Green v. Brookrna, 23 Mich. 48, 9 Am. Rep. 74. In Trenholm v. Kloepper, 88 Neb. 236, 129 N. W. 436, and Hankwits v. Barrett, 143 Wis. 639,128 N. W. 430, contracts to repurchase stock made by the seller as a term of the sale were held taken out of the statute by the acceptance and receipt of the stock on the original purchase. See infra, $ 640,

61 Greenwood v. Law, 65 N. J. L. 168, 26 Atl. 134,19 L. R. A. 688.

62 Hudson p. Weir, 29 Ala. 294; Gooch v. Holmes, 41 Me. 523; Pray p. Mitchell, 60 Me. 430, 435; Baldwin v. Williams, 3 Met. 366; Somerby v. Buntin, 118 Mass. 279, 19 Am. Rep. 459. But see contra, Vawter v. Griffin, 40 Ind. 693; Howe p. Jones, 57 Ia. 130, 8 has no existence until it is issued, and, therefore, an oral agreement to contribute capital and take stock in a corporation about to be formed has been upheld;63 as has an oral agreement for the sale of an interest in an invention, before letters-patent have been obtained;64 and so a patent itself or an interest in a patent has been held orally assignable.65 In a Massachusetts case which so held,66 the court said: "The words of the statute have never yet been extended by any court beyond securities which are subjects of common sale and barter and which have a visible and tangible form." These words are quoted with approval in other cases.67 They are, however, not strictly accurate, for even a sale of a simple contract debt has been held by some courts to be within the statute.68 The sale of a partner's interest in a firm is not within the statute.69 In some States choses in action have been included by the express words of the statute,70 or the wide term "personal property" is used.71

N. W. 461, 10 N. W. 299; Bell v. Pit man, 143 Ky. 621, 136 8. W. 1026, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 820; Whittamore v. Gibbs, 24 N. H. 484.

63 Wemple v. St. Louis Ac. R. Co., 120 111. 196, 11 N. E. 906; Peninsula Leasing Co. c. Cody, 161 Mich. 604, 126 N. W. 1053; York Park Building Assoc p. Barnes, 39 Neb. 834, 58 N. W. 440; Clapp v. Gilt Edge Mines Co., 33 8. Dak. 123, 144 N. W. 721. See also Berwin v. Bolles, 183 Mass. 340, 342, 67 N. E. 323; Clement v. Rowe, 33 S. Dak. 499,146 N. W. 700.

64 Dalzell v. Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co., 149 U. S. 316, 37 L. Ed. 749, 13 S. Ct. 886; Somerby v. Buntin, 118 Mass. 279, 19 Am. Rep. 459; Harri-gan v. Smith, 57 N. J. Eq. 635, 42 Atl. 579; Jones v. Reynolds, 120 N. Y. 213, 24 N. E. 27S. See also Cook v. Sterling Electric Co., 118 Fed. 45. An assignment, of a patent must be in writing. U. S. Comp. St. (1901), p. 3387.

65 Searle v. Hill, 73 Ia. 367, 35 N. W. 490, 5 Am. St. Rep. 688; Burr v. De-LeVergne, 102 N. Y. 415, 7 N. E. 366; Whitcomb v. Wbitoomb, 86 Vt. 76, 81

Atl. 97. The Federal Statute requiring a writing in order to validate an assignment [Comp. Stat. (1901), p. 3387], is only of importance where the rights of third persons are concerned. See cases supra, also Burke v. Partridge, 58 N. H. 349.

66 Somerby v. Buntin, 118 Mas. 279, 19 Am. Rep. 459.

67 Meehan v. Sharp, 151 Mass. 564, 24 N. E. 907; Vincent v. Vieths, 60 Mo. App. 9. See also Bants v. Chicago, 172 MI. 264, 218, 60 N. E. 233, 40 L. R. A. 611; Howe v. Jones, 57 Iowa, 130, 8 N. W. 461.

68Walker v.. Supple, 54 Ga. 178; French v. Schoonmaker, 69 N. J. L. 6, 54 Atl. 225.

69 Vincent v. Vieths, 60 Mo. App. 9.

70See Colton v. Raymond, 114 Fed. 863, 62 C. C. A. 382; Artcher v. Zeh, 5 Hill, 200; Peabody v. Speyem, 56 N. Y. 230; Tomphns v. Sheehan, 158 N. Y. 617, 53 N. E. 502; Groenberg v. Davidson, 39 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 796,

81 N. Y. S. 345; Nichols v. Clark, 40 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 107; Spear v. Bach,

82 Wis. 192, 52 N. W. 97.

71See Meohem on Sales, Sec. 287.

Where the statute is in this form there seems no ground for restricting its application to choses in action of "a visible and palpable form." But where the words of the statute are confined to goods, wares, and merchandise, this construction seems sound. As there is perhaps quite as much reason why the transfer of intangible property should be supported by written evidence as the transfer of visible property the Uniform Sales Act expressly included choses in action.

Sec. 522. Undivided Interest In Goods

The sale of an undivided share of goods is within the statute.72