Recent English cases have adopted a doctrine going quite as far as the doctrine criticized in the preceding section. Where a signed document refers to the transaction in question an unsigned memorandum describing the transaction has been treated as incorporated therewith.43 One or two similar decisions have been made in the United States.44 Such decisions go beyond what seems permissible, for the signature of the party to be charged does not authenticate an unsigned memorandum of the purchase merely because the signed paper makes some reference to the purchase. The signature vouches for the fact that there was a purchase, but it does not vouch for the terms of the purchase as described in the unsigned paper.45

512, 57 N. W. 19 (goods); Brown v. Whipple, 58 N. H. 229; Wilson v. Lewiston Mill Co., 160 N. Y. 314, 44 N. E. 959; Darling v. Gumming, 92 Va. 521, 23 8. E. 880. Devine v. Warner, 76 Conn. 229, 56 Atl. 562, also supports the requirements suggested by the text but goes still further (without justification) in requiring a mutual reference between the papers.

42This is well illustrated by a New Jersey decision, Baldwin v. Trowbridge, 62 N." J. Eq. 468, 60 Atl, 494, where a check signed by the defendant was held to establish a memorandum of a trust. The amount of the check was taken from entries in an account-book kept by the bookkeeper of the defendant, the party to be charged, and the entries contained the data necessary for a memorandum. It is reasonably clear that the maker of a check by making it for the amount indicated in the account-book authenticated with his signature the entries in the book.

43 Long v. Millar (C. A.), 4 C. P. D. 450. The defendant signed the following receipt: "Received of Mr. George Long the sum of thirty-one pounds as a deposit on the purchasc of three plots of land at Hammer, smith. 31 0 0. Chas. W. Millar." The plaintiff was allowed to treat as incorporated in this receipt a memorandum of the purchase which had been signed by him on the same day, and which contained the full terms of the bargain. It will be noticed that the receipt does not refer to a document at all, but refers to a transac-tion. See also Studds v. Watson, 28 Ch. D. 306; Oliver v. Hunting, 44 Ch. D. 206, where, however, both papers were signed by the parties to be charged.

44Smith v. Colby, 136 Mass. 552. In this case these words in the paper signed by the defendant, "Upon the terms agreed upon when at your place," were held sufficient to enable the plaintiff to make use of a memorandum of those terms. Compare Beck-with v. Talbot, 95 U. S. 289, 24 L. Ed. 498. In this case a signed paper referred to a previous "agreement." It was held that a previously written agreement was thereby incorporated by the signed paper. This decision seems sound for the word " agreement" seems to have referred to this writing rather than to the oral agreement of which the writing was the evidence.