27 Mason v. Spiller, 186 Man. 346, 71 N. E. 779.
28Brown v. Slausen, 23 Wis. 244. Contrast with this case, Stack v. Roth Bros. Co., 162 Wis. 281, 156 N. W. 148, Ana. Cas. 1918 C. 741, where an agreement to buy at auction, and sell for the joint benefit of the parties such of the goods as proved salable and divide the remainder at an inventory valuation was held not within the statute.
29See infra, Sec. 528.
30Vincent v, Vieths, 60 Mo. App. 9. Where one partner sells to a copartner and withdraws from the conduct of the business, and the latter takes the sole management of the business, there is such acceptance and actual receipt as to satisfy the statute. Gaisell v. Johnston, 68 Wash. 470, 123 Pac. 783.
31 Arkansas Lumber etc. Co. v. Benson, 92 Ark. 392, 123 S. W. 367.
32Clark v. Duffey, 24 Ind. 271; Hol-den v. Gilfeather, 78 Vt. 405, 63 Atl. 144.
33 Mygatt v. Tarbell, 78 Wis. 351, 47 N. W. 618. See also Goldbeck v. Kensington Bank, 147 Pa. 267, 23 Atl. 665.
Sales Act, is as wide in its meaning as the several words used in the older statute. The most troublesome question in any attempt to define the meaning of goods relates to the dividing line between real and personal property. Although the Statutes of Frauds in England and the United States require a contract for the sale of land to be in writing, it is frequently important to distinguish whether a transaction is within the section of the statute relating to lands or in that relating to goods, for there is no limitation of value in the section relating to lands, and that section also offers only one method of making the transaction enforceable, namely, a writing, whereas the section relating to goods offers several alternatives.