It is the generally established law that a memorandum of a contract within the Statute of Frauds if signed by the party to be charged, though not signed by the other party, makes the contract enforceable against the party who has signed." In some States, it is indeed held that in a contract for the sale of land the vendor must sign the memorandum in order that the contract shall be enforceable against either party, and that when signed by the vendor the memorandum is effectual to charge both parties to the contract.90 In such jurisdictions no difficulty in regard to mutuality can be suggested. But under the more general rule, either party who signs and only a party who signs can be sued.91 It is obvious that on this theory where a memorandum is signed by one party only, the contract lacks mutuality of obligation and of remedy as those terms are ordinarily understood yet, in spite of a doubt expressed by Lord Redesdale,92 not only a court of law but a court of equity allows enforcement of such a contract by the party who has not satisfied the statute,98 since the plaintiff by filing his bill submits
88 Castle v. Wilkinson, L. R. 5 Ch. 534, 39 L. J. Ch. 843; Mundy r. Shellabergei-, 161 Fed. 603, 88 C. C. A. 445; Olson v. Lovell, 91 Cal. 606, 27 Pac. 765; Knox v. Spratt, 23 Fla. 64, 6 So. 924; Short v. Kieffer, 43 111. App. 515; Planer v. Equitable Life Asur. Soc. (N. J.), 37 Atl. 668; Palmer v. Gould, 144 N. Y. 671, 39 N. E. 378; Farthing v. Rochelle, 131 N. G. 563, 43 S. E. 1; People's Sav. Bank v. Parisette, 68 Ohio St. 450, 67 N. E. 896, 96 Am. St. Rep. 672.
89 Supra, Sec.586.
92 Lawrenson v. Butler, 1 Set. A Lef. 13. See also dicta of Chancellor Kent and Gibson, C. J., in Clason v. Bailey, 14 Johns. 485; Wilson v. Clarke, 1 Watts & S. 554.
93 Buckhouse v. Crosby, 2 Eq. Ab. 32, pl. 44, 3 Sw. 434 n. (s. c.); Fowle v. Freeman, 9 Ves. 351; Morgan v. Holford, 1 Sm. & G. 101; Martin v. Pycroft, 2 D. M. & G. 785, 795; Davis v. Robert, 89 Ala. 402, 405, 8 So. 114, 18 Am. St. Rep. 126; Vance v. Newman, 72 Ark. 359, 80 S. W. 574, 105 Am. St. Rep. 42; Hodges v. Kowing, 58 Conn. 12, 18 Atl. 979, 7 L. R. A. 87; Perry v. Paschal, 103 Ga. 134, 137, 29 S. E. 703; Gradle himself to the jurisdiction of the court and enables it to give a decree compelling him as well as the defendant to perform.