The requirement of a writing is the only method of satisfying any clause of the fourth section of the statute and is a permissible way of satisfying the seventeenth section. Consequently, in determining the sufficiency of a memorandum in writing, decisions under one clause or section are generally in point for the decision of similar questions under any other clause or section. The wording of any section under which a case comes up should, however, be observed, for many of the statutes in regard to agreements concerning land and other matters within the statute, require the "contract" to be in writing in order to be enforceable, while sections relating to the sale of goods, with almost perfect uniformity, are satisfied by a "note or memorandum." l The difference between a contract in writing and a memorandum of a parol contract is important. Thus a note or memorandum may be made at any time prior to the beginning of the action 2 and as will appear from subsequent discussion, need not be made with the intent of making a memorandum. The parol evidence rule also affects differently a contract in writing from a memorandum in writing. The former is necessarily the only complete statement of the contract and the only evidence in regard to it, but a written memorandum may be shown by parol to be inaccurate or inadequate, and hence not a compliance with the statute.3
1The Statute of Georgia. (Code of 1915), Sec. 3222, requires the "promise" to be in writing, but the Supreme Court of Georgia seems to lay no stress on this difference from the ordinary form of the statute. See Foster v. Leeper, 20 Ga. 294; Phillips v. Ocmulgee Mills, 55 Ga. 633. In these cases memoranda made subsequently to an oral bargain, and in the former case in the nature of an admission of a past contract rather than an expression of a present promise, were held sufficient. See, however, Jackson v. Strowger Telephone Exchange, 108 Ga. 646, 34 S. E. 207.
2 See supra, Sec. 638.
3See the distinction taken in cases where the "contract" was required to be in writing. Ealaell v. Renfrew, 202 U. S. 287,26 S. Ct. 610, 50 L. Ed. 1032;
Zimmerman v. Zehendner, 164 Ind. 466. Also in cases where some "note or memorandum" only was necessary. Ingraham v. Strong, 41 111. App. 46; Catterlin v. Bush, 39 Or. 496, 59 Fac. 706, 65 Pac. 1064. In the latter case the court said: "The memorandum and the contract or agreement are not to be confounded as one and the same thing. The memorandum is understood to be a note or minute informally made of the agreement, which may have but a verbal existence, expressing briefly the essential terms, and was never intended to stand as and for the agreement itself. The necessary elements are that it must contain the essential terms of the contract, expressed with such a degree of certainty that it may be understood without recourse to parol evidence to show the