It is said by Chalmers in his annotation of the English Sale of Goods Act, that an exchange is not within the meaning of sale in the Statute of Frauds. He cites no authority for this, however, and in the United States it is well settled that a contract of exchange or barter is within the statute.23 As the mischief is the same whether the bargain is one for a money price or an exchange or barter, it is desirable that the rule should be the same. Under the definition of sale in section 1, and that of price in section 9 (2) of the Uniform Sales Act, there can be no question that an agreement to transfer title to goods, or an actual transfer of title, in consideration of any personal property transferred or promised to be transferred, is within the terms of section 4 of the Act.24

Stuart v. University Lumber Co., (Or. 1913), 132 Pac, 1; Winship v. Buzzard, 9 Rich. 103; Suber v. Pullin, 1 S. C. 273; Wallace v. Dowling, 86 S. Car. 307, 68 S. E. 571, 138 Am. St. Rep. 1054; Jones p. Pettigrew, 25 S. Dak. 432,127 N. W. 538; Mattison v. Weet-cott, 13 Vt. 258; Ellison v. Brigbam, 38 Vt. 64; Forsyth v. Mann, 68 Vt. 116, 34 Atl. 481, 32 L. R, A. 788. See also Heintx v. Burkhard, 29 Or. 55, 43 Pac. 866, 54 Am. St. Rep. 777.

23 By express provision of a few statutes some definition is made. In California (Civ. Code, Sec.1740), agreements to manufacture goods from materials furnished by the manufacturer or another are excluded. See Flynn v. Dougherty, 91 Cal. 669, 27 Pac. 1080, 14 L. R. A. 230. ' So in Iowa (Code 1897, Sec. 4626), contracts requiring the expenditure of labor, skill, or money for producing or procuring the goods are excepted. See Dierson v. Peters-meyer, 109 Iowa, 233, 80 N. W. 389; Lewis v. Evans, 108 Iowa, 296, 79 N. W. 81.

23Raymond v. Colton, 104 Fed. 219, 43 C. C. A. 501; Franklin v. Matoa Gold Min. Co., 158 Fed. 941, 86 C. C. A. 145; Kuhns v. Gates, 92 Ind. 66; Wallace v. Long, 105 Ind. 522, 526, 5 N. E. 666, 55 Am. Rep. 222; Dowling v. McKenney, 124 Mass. 478; Gorman v. Brossard, 120 Mich. 611, 79 N. W. 903; Rutan v. Hiiicb-man, 30 N. J. L. 255; Misner v. Strong, 181 N. Y. 163, 168, 73 N. E. 965. In Spinney v. Hill, 81 Minn. 316, 84 N. W. 116, however, it was held, citing no authority, that an agreement to transfer stock in part payment for services was not a sale of the stock within the meaning of the Statute of Frauds. But see the ease of White v. Drew, 56 How. Pr. 63, where a contract to give stock for valuable information was regarded as within the statute, though the bargain was enforced because the statute was held to have been satisfied. Also Wallace v. Long, 105 Ind. 522, 626, 5 N. E. 666, 55 Am. Rep. 222.