The question was early made under the English Statute whether it applied to executory contracts to sell goods as well as to sales, and there were decisions to the effect that executory contracts were not included,7 but the contrary view was afterward taken and the correctness of it confirmed by a statute known as Lord Tenterden's Act.8 This statute is in terms merely declaratory, and such it has always been considered, so that though not enacted in the United States there has never been any doubt that in America as in England executory contracts are within the terms of Statutes of Frauds.9 It is probable, however, that the early English decisions in regard to this matter have been partly responsible for the confusion of the law in the United States in regard to contracts for work and labor as distinguished from contracts to Bell. The words of the Uniform Sales Act make it clear that executory contracts are covered. A conditional sale or contract to sell on condition is included.10 A contract to bequeath personal property also has been held within the statute.11
6 On the construction of this clause, see Willard v. Higdon, 123 Md. 447, 91 Atl. 577; Ann. Cas. 1916 C. 339; Davis v. Blanchard, 138 N. Y. S. 202; Goldowitz v. Kupfer, 80 N. Y. Misc. 487, 141 N. Y. S. 531; Schneider v. Lesinsky, 162 N. Y. 3. 769; Reading Silk Mills v. Barso, 169 N. Y. S. 672; Zimmerman v. Gillman, 172 N. Y. 8. 263. Appropriation of the goods by the seller in conformity with an order by the buyer does not satisfy this provision. Peck v. Abbott & Fernald Co.,
223 Mass. 423, 111 N.E. 890. See also infra, Sec. 548. But putting them as requested in a place which belongs to the buyer or is under his control is evidence of acceptance and receipt. Castle v. Swift, 132 Md. 631, 104 Atl. 187.
7Towers v. Osborne, 1 Strange, 506; Clayton v. Andrews, 4 Burr, 1201.
89 George IV, c. 14, Sec.7.
9See cases cited infra, Sec.516; also Barr v. Satcher, 72 8. C. 36, 51 S. E. 530.