Maryland alone, of the United States, seems to have adopted the English statute as such, as part of her jurisprudence,3 but the statutes of other States contain words which are either the same as those of the English statute, or must be regarded as equivalent. Ordinarily but not invariably the same words are used in the American statutes to describe the effect of a failure to satisfy the statutory requirements whether the contract is for the sale of land or of goods or is a guarantee or an agreement not to be performed within a year. Several States enact that only such a bargain as fulfills the terms of the statute "is valid" or that otherwise it "is invalid." In Iowa the statute reads "no evidence is competent unless it be in writing." Except for the differences hereafter alluded to,4 which would naturally follow in Iowa from treating the statute as imposing merely a rule of evidence, there seems no reason why these various expressions should not be regarded as identical in legal effect with the expressions used in the English statute,

"I think the right interpretation of" the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds "is this, that an agreement which cannot be enforced on either aide is as a contract void altogether." And this statement was quoted in Reade v. Lamb, 6 Exch. 130. In Leroux v. Brown, 12 C. B. 801, it was held that the 4th section did not affect the validity of the contract but only the proof of it, whereas it was said that the 17th section made the contract void, unless the statute was complied with. But in Bailey v. Sweeting, 30 L. J. C. P. 160, the court held that though non-compliance with section 17, made the agreement not actionable, it became actionable when the statute was afterwards satisfied. In Sievewright v. Archibald, 17 Q. B. 103, the same view was taken. In Britain v. Rossi-ter, 11 Q. B. D. 123,127 (C. A.) Brett, L. J., said of a contract within the 4th section: "In my opinion, no distinction exists between the 4th and the 17th sections of the Statute; at all events, the contract is not void under the 4th section; the contract exists but no one is liable upon it;" and similar statements were made by the other Lord Justices. See to the same effect Maddison v. Alderson, 8 App. Cas. 467, and though in Morris v. Baron, [1918] A. C. 1,11, Lord Finlay seems to have thought otherwise, Viscount Haldane (at p. 15) denied the supposed distinction.

3See Culvin v. Williams, 3 H. 4 J. 38, 5 Am. Dec. 417; Newman v. Morris, 4 H. & McH. 421; Rentch v. Long, 27 Md. 188; Sentman v. Gamble, 69 Md. 293, 13 Atl. 68, 14 Atl. 673; Webb v. Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co., 77 Md. 92, 26 Atl. 113, 39 Am. St. Rep. 395; Corbett v. Wolford, 84 Md. 426, 26 Atl. 1088. In Indiana, the first and sixth sections of the local statute are similar in wording to | 4 of the English Statute; but Sec.Sec. 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, 18, resemble {17 of the English Act See Doney v. Laughlin, 60 Ind. App. 38, 42, 94 N. E. 1027.

4 Infra, Sec. 527.

but the same assumption cannot safely be made in regard to the words "shall be void," or "are void," which are contained in the statutes of a number of the States, namely: Alabama,5 Colorado,6 Michigan7 Nebraska,8 Nevada,9 New Jersey,10 New York,11 Oregon,12 Utah,13 Wisconsin,14 Wyoming.15 and the word "invalid" is sometimes treated as equivalent to void.16