The memorandum may be in any form, and an enumeration of particular cases that have arisen is not exclusive, but merely illustrative. The memorandum may of course be in the form of a carefully prepared written contract,.but it may also be, in whole or in part, in the form of a letter or letters,4 receipts,5 an invoice or statement of account,6 a bill or note,7 an undelivered deed, 8 a will delivered by the maker to one to whom he had promised a devise,9 a revoked and undelivered will,10 a bill in equity,11 an advertisement,12 records of municipal officers,13 or of a private corporation,14 entries in books of account15 or memorandum books of any kind.16 Telegrams intentions of the parties. Mere formal or nonessential terms will be implied, but the elements necessary to a com-plated contract must be intelligently expressed, though ever so briefly."

4 Many cues of this sort may be found in following sections, and see G. W. Hull Co. v. Marquette Cement Mfg. Co., 208 Fed. 260, 125 C. C. A. 460. So, Dewax v. Mintoft, [1912] 2 K. B. 373; Nickerson v. Bridges, 216 Mass. 416, 103 N. E. 939; Harvey v. Brass, 216 Mass. 57, 104 N. E. 350; Herman v. Wacker, 96 Neb. 102, 147 N. W. 127; Croghan v. Worthington Hardware Co., 115 Va. 497, 79 8. E. 1039.

5 Evans v. Prothero, 1 De G. M. & G. 572; Williams v. Morris, 95 U. S. 444, 24 L. Ed. 360; Littell v. Jones, 56 Ark. 139, 19 S. W. 497; Eppich v. Clifford, 6 Colo. 493; Ellis v. Bray, 79 Mo. 227; Kidder v. Flanders, 73 N. H. 345, 61 Atl. 675; Gordon v. Collett, 102 N. C. 632, 9 S. E. 486. All these decisions related to contracts to sell land.

6 Barry v. Coombo, 1 Pet. 640, 7 L. Ed. 295 (land); Linton v. Williams, 25 Ga. 391 (goods).

7Reynolds v. Kirk, 105 Ala. 446, 17 So. 95 (land); Phillips v. Ocmul-gee Mills, 55 Ga. 633 (goods); Work v. Cowhick, 81 111. 317 (land); Little v. Pearson, 7 Pick. 301, 19 Am. Dec. 289 (land).

8 See infra, Sec. 579.

9Naylor v. Shelton, 102 Ark. 30, 143 S. W. 117; Brink-ier v. Brinkner, 7 Pa. 53, 55; Torgerson v. Hauge, 34 N. Dak. 616,159 N. W. 6.

10In re McGinky's Est, 257 Pa. 478, 101 Atl. 807. Cf. Watkins v. Watkins, 82 N. J. Eq. 483, 89 Atl. 253.

11Thomas J. Baird Co. v. Harris, 209 Fed. 20, 126 C. C. A. 217.

12 Kelly v. Fischer, 263 111 184, 105 N. E. 21; Laforme v. Bradley, 77 N. H. 128,88 Atl. 1000.

13 Bourland v. Peoria County 16 111. 538; Grimes v. Hamilton County, 37 Iowa, 290; McManus v. Boston, 171 Mass. 152, 50 N. E. 607; Stevens v. Muskegon, 111 Mich. 72, 69 N. W. 227, 36 L. R. A. 777; Curtis v. Porto-mouth, 67 N. H. 506, 39 Atl. 439 (all these decisions related to contracts concerning land); Argus Co. v. Albany, 55 N. Y. 495, 14 Am. Rep. 296 (not to be performed within a year).

14 Lamkin p. Baldwin Mfg. Co., 72 Conn. 57, 43 Atl. 593, 1042, 44 L. R. A. 786 (land and goods); Tufts v. Plymouth Mining Co., 14 Allen, 407 (not to be performed within a year). Cf. Asbury v. Mauney, 173 N. C. 454, 92 S. E. 267.

15 Sari v. Bourdfflon, 1 C. B. (N. S.) 188 (goods); Newell v. Radford, I, R. 3 C. P. 52 (goods).

16 Champion v. Plummer, 1 B. & P.

also are sufficient.17 The only difficulty in regard to telegrams relates to the agency of the telegraph operator who actually writes and signs the messages as delivered. Statutes in some States expressly provide that such telegrams are to be treated as the writings of the sender, but the result seems to be the same in the absence of such a statute.18 The memorandum may be written in pencil.19