Most of the statutes which specifically include choses in action within the statute also mention acceptance and actual receipt of the evidences of the choses in action as a method of satisfying the statute, but even where evidences of the choses in action are not mentioned there can be no doubt that delivery of any document which is customarily regarded as representing the choses in action would be sufficient. Thus the acceptance and receipt of a stock certificate would satisfy the statute so far as a contract to sell stock is concerned.20 How far beyond the case of a document courts might go is doubtful. In Jones v. Reynolds 21 a model of an invention as yet unpatented was delivered, and this was held sufficient to satisfy the statute when the invention was sold. In regard to choses in action having no tangible evidence, the method satisfying the statute by acceptance and actual receipt is not suitable and resort must be had to the other methods prescribed.
16See Gorton Toy Co. v. Buswell Lumber Mfg. Co., 160 Wis. 341, 136 N. W. 147. Cf. infra, Sec. 573.
17Goddard v. Demerritt, 48 Me. 211; Townsend v. Hargravee, 118 Muss. 325. These decisions seem sound for the statute is satisfied according to its terms, and though the buyer may not have contemplated making himself liable for the whole, he did not repudiate the contract and his liability necessarily follows. See also Vincent v. Gernord. 11 Johns. 283, and supra, Sec. 550.
18 MoCormick Harvesting Co. p. Cusack, 116 Mich. 647, 74 N. W. 1005.
19Elliott v. Thomas, 3 M. 4 W. 170; Hess v. Dicks, 181 Ia. 342, 164 N. W. 639; Krippendorf-Dittman Co. v. Hunt-Riddick Merc. Co. (Mo. App.), 190 S. W. 44; MacEvoy v. Aronson, 46 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 622, 92 N. Y. S. 724; Patterson v. Sargent etc. Co., 83 Vt. 516, 77 Atl. 338, 138 Am. St. Rep. 1102.
20 Berwin v. Holies, 183 Mass. 340, 67 N. E. 323.
21 120 N. Y. 213,24 N. E. 279.
It is for the jury to determine in a doubtful case whether there has been acceptance and receipt.22 If, however, there is no evidence justifying the jury in finding more than one way, the court may properly decide the question.23
22Edna p. Dudfield, 1 Q. B. 302; Lillywhito v. Devereux, 16 M. & W. 285; Morton v. Tibbett, 15 Q. B. 428; Hinchman v. Lincoln, 124 U. S. 38, 48, 8 8. Ct. 369, 31 L. Ed. 337; Waite v. MoKelvy, 71 Minn. 167, 73 N. W. 727; Houghtaling v. Bull, 19 Mo. 84, 59 Am. Dec. 331; Lauer v. Richmond Institute, 8 Utah, 305, 31 Pac 397; Becker v. Holm, 89 Wis. 80, 61 N. W. 307.
23Hinchman v. Lincoln, 124 U. S. 38, 48, 8 S. Ct. 369, 31 L. Ed. 337; Richardson v. Smith, 101 Md. 15, 60 Atl. 612, 70 L. R. A. 321, 109 Am. St. Rep. 552.