The seventeenth section of the original English statute reads "parties to be charged," while the fourth section uses the singular "party." The latter form has been generally used in the United States, and in the English Sale of Goods Act in refinact-ing the seventeenth section the singular also is used, as it has been in the American Uniform Sales Act. Little stress seems to have been laid by the courts, however, on whether the singular or plural number was used.70 The words "to be charged" might as an original question have fairly been construed as meaning "to be bound by the contract." On such a construction, if the contract was unilateral, only the promisor need sign; if the contract was bilateral, both would have to sign or the contract could be enforced against neither. But it is well settled in most jurisdictions that the words in question mean "sought to be charged in the action," and, therefore, that the memorandum need be signed only by the defendant, and must be signed by him without regard to which part of the contract he is to perform.71 voice of 4)." The plaintiff signed this receipt. It was held that the words of the receipt written by the defendant might be regarded as authenticated by his previous signature of the guarantee, although the words of the receipt were not written with the intent of being signed by the defendant. The decision seems sound, for there is no doubt that the words of the receipt were written by the defendant on the guarantee itself, at least in part for the purpose of making a correction in the earlier writing, which he himself had signed. In Lewis v. Johnson, 123 Minn. 409, 143 N. W. 1127, L. R. A. 1016 D. 150, the court seems to deny the possibility of parol adoption of a former writing; but the Minnesota statute requires "the contract" to be in writing.

70 See 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 685n.

71 Hatton v. Gray, 2 Ch. Cas. 164 (land); Cotton v. Lee, cited in 2 Bro. Ch. 564 (land); Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 265 (land); Fowle v. Freeman, 9 Ves.

361 (land); Backhouse v. Mohun, 3 Swanst. 434 n. (land); Allen v. Bennet, 3 Taunt. 169 (goods); Thornton v. Kempster, 5 Taunt. 786, 789 (goods); Laythoarp n. Bryant, 2 Bing. N. C. 736 (land); Smith v. Neale, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 67 (contract not to be performed within a year); Reuss v. Piokaley, L. R. 1 Ex. 342 (contract not to be performed within a year); Butcher v. Nash, 61 L. T. (N. S.) 72; Re Neff, 157 Fed. 57, 84 C. C. A. S6I, 28 L. B. A. (N. 3.) 349; Beckwith v. Clark, 188 Fed. 171, 110 C. C. A. 207 (land); Williams v. De Soto Oil Co., 213 Fed. 104, 129 C. C. A. 538; Heflin v. Milton, 60 Ala. 354; Oliver v. Alabama Ac. Ins. Co., 82 Ala. 417, 2 So. 445 (rent); Lee v. Vaughan Seed Store, 101 Ark. 68, 141 S. W. 496, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.)

362 (goods); Cavanaugh v. Caaselman, 88 Cal. 543, 26 Pac. 515 (land); Easton v. Montgomery, 00 Cal. 307, 27 Pac. 280, 25 Am. St. Rep. 123 (land); Harper v. Goldschmidt, 166 Cal. 246, 104 Pac. 451, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 680

A contrary rule, however, exists in some States in regard to contracts for the sale of land- Either because of special language in the statute, or because of the rather extraordinary view that "party to be charged" necessarily means the vendor,72 these courts hold not only that the vendor must sign the the bargain must appear or whether the consideration furnished by the plaintiff either by way of counter promise or executed consideration must be stated in the memorandum.77

(land); Hodges v. Rowing, 58 Coon. 12, 18 Atl. 979, 7 L. R. A. 87 (land); Matthis v. Weir (Del. Ch.), 84 Atl.878; Perkins v. Hadsell, 50 111. 216 (land); Ullsperger v. Meyer, 217 111. 262, 75 N. E. 482 (land); First Presbyt. Church v. Swanson, 100 111. App. 39 (contract not to be performed within a fear); Shirley v. Shirley, 7 Blaekf. (Ltd.) 4S2 (land); Burke v. Mead, 159 Ind. 252, 64 N. E. 880 (land); Knapp v. Beach, 52 Ind. App. 573,101 N. E. 37; Scharfer v. Whitman, 146 Ia. 64, 67, 124 N. W, 763 (goods); Wiley v. Hellen, 83 Kan. 544, 112 Pac. 158 (land); Smith v. Theobald, 86 Ky. 141, 5 S. W. 394 (contract not to be performed within a year); Engler v. Garrett, 100 Md. 387, 59 Atl. 648 (land); Williams v. Robinson, 73 Me. 186, 40 Am. Rep. 352 (goods); Old Colony R. R. Corp. 0. Evans, 6 Gray, 25, 66 Am. Dec. 394 (land); Booklovera' library 0. Bogi-gian, 193 Man. 444, 79 N. E. 769 (land); Nickersone. Bridges, 216 Mass. 416,103 N. E. 939; Morin 0. Marts, 13 Minn. 191 (goods); Peevey v. Houghton, 72 Miss. 918, 17 So. 378, 18 So. 357, 48 Am. St. 592; Ivory 0. Murphy, 36 Mo. 534 (land); Cunningham 0. Williams, 43 Mo. App. 629 (goods); Moore 0. Thompson, 93 Mo. App. 336, 348, 67 S. W. 680 (contract not to be performed within a year); Tracy v. Benidge, 180 Mo. App. 220, 167 S. W. 1176 (goods); Gartrcll v. Stafford, 12 Neb. 545, 11 N. W. 732, 41 Am. Rep. 767 (land); Sabre 0. Smith, 62 N. H. 663 (goods); Houghwout v. Boisaubin, 18 N. J. Eq. 315; Stengel 0. Sergeant, 74 N. J. Eq. 20, 68 Atl. 1106 (land); Clason v. Bailey, 14 Johns. 484 (goods); McCrea v. Punnort, 16 Wend. 460, 30 Am. Deo. 103; Justice 0. Lang, 42

N. Y. 493, 1 Am. Rep. 576 (goods); Mason v. Decker, 72 N. Y. 595. 28 Am. Rep. 190 (goods); Lord v. Cranio, 154 N. Y. 172, 47 N. E. 1088 (land); Marks v. Cowdin, 226 N. Y. 138,123 N. E. 139 (contract not to be performed within a year); Brown 0. Hobbs, 154 N. C. 544,70 S. E. 906; Case Threshing Machine Co. 0. Smith, 16 Or. 381, 18 Pav. 641 (goods); Taggart v. Hunter, 78 Oreg. 139, 152 Pac. 871, Ann. Cas. 1918 A 128 (employment of agent to sell realty); Davis 0. Martin, 146 N. C. 281, 59 S. E. 700 (land); Himrod Furnace Co. 0. Cleveland Ac. Co., 22 Ohio St. 451 (contract not to be performed within a year); Flegel v. Dowling, 54 Oreg. 40, 102 Pac. 178, 135 Am. St. Rep. 812 (land); Douglas v. Speare, 2 Nott & McC. 207, 10 Am. Dec. 588 (goods); Peay v. Seigler, 48 S. C. 496, 26 S. E. 885, 59 Am. St. 731 (land); Shillinglaw v. Sims, 86 S. Car. 76, 67 S. E. 906; McPhenon v. Fargo, 10 S. Dak. 611, 74 N. W. 1057, 66 Am. St. 723 (land); Dyer v. Winston (Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 227 (land); Black v. Hans (Tex.), 146 S. W. 309; Bailey v. Irishman, 32 Utah, 123, 89 Pac. 78 (goods); Western Timber Co. 0. Kahuna River Lumber Co., 42 Wash. 620, 85 Pac. 338, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 397, 114 Am. St. 137 (land); Monongah etc Co. v. Fleming, 42 W. Va. 538, 26 S. E. 201 (land); Armstrong 0. Maryland Coal Co., 67 W. Va. 589, 69 S. E. 195. In Idaho, however, although the statute reads "party charged" it is held that the memorandum must be signed by both parties. Houser v. Hobart, 22 Ida. 735, 127 Pac. 997 (goods); Kerr v. Finch, 25 Ida. 34, 135 Pac 1185 (goods). 72 This view seems to have originated contract whoever is defendant in the suit, but also that the vendor's signature is sufficient to bind the vendee.73 How far this may involve the consequence that the vendor can enforce an oral executory contract against the purchaser, because of his ability to write a memorandum of the bargain and sign it himself is not always made clear; but probably it would generally, if not universally, be necessary that the purchaser should have indicated his assent to the writing either by accepting it or otherwise. It has been suggested that even though a memorandum with the signature of the defendant makes a contract enforceable at law, specific performance should not be given because of lack of mutualty;74 but the law is uniformly settled that if the memorandum would bind the defendant at law, equity will not refuse to enforce the contract merely because the contract could not have been enforced against the plaintiff.75 It should be observed that the requirement of the signature of the defendant has nothing to do with the questions previously considered,76 whether the names of both parties to in some misunderstandings in early New York decisions. See Roget v. Merritt, 2 Caines, 120; Ballard v. Walker, 3 Johns. Cas. 60; Gale v. Nixon, 6 Cow. 445; Worrall v. Kuan, 5 N. Y. 220, 55 Am. Dec. 330.

73 Scott v. Glenn, 08 Cat. 168, 32 Pac. 983; Murray p. Crawford, 13S Ky. 25, 127 S. W. 404, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 680; Evans v. Stratum, 142 Ky. 615, 134 S. W. 1154, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 393; Henry P. Reeser, 153 Ky. 8, 154 S. W- 371; Kaiser p. Jones, 167 Ky. 607, 163 S. W. 741; Mull v. Smith, 132 Mich. 618, 94 N. W. 183 (statutory); Smith p. Mathis, 174 Mich. 262, 140 N. W. 648 (statutory); Gregory Co. v. Shapiro, 125 Minn. 81, 145 N. W. 791 (statutory); Krohn v. Dustin, (Minn. 1919), 172 N. W. 213 (statutory); Ide v. Leister, 10 Mont. 5, 24 Pac. 695, 24 Am. St. Rep. 17; Gardeb v. Kloke, 36 Neb. 493, 64 N. W. 834; lake v. lake, 95 Neb. 603, 146 N. W. 918; Worrall v. Munn, 5 N. Y. 229, 55 Am. Dec 330 (statutory);

Dykers v. Townsend, 24 N. Y. 57 (statutory); De Beerski v. Paige, 47 Barb. 172 (statutory); Boehly v. Manning, 52 N. Y. Misc. 382, 102 N. Y. S. 171 (statutory); Tripp p. Bishop, 56 Pa. 424; Smith & Fleek's Appeal, 60 Pa. 474; Brodhead v. Reinbold, 200 Pa. 618, 50 Atl. 229, 86 Am. St. 735; McPherson v. Fargo, 10 S. Dak. 611, 74 N. W. 1057; Lee v. Cherry, 85 Term. 707, 4 S. W. 835, 4 Am. St. 800; Lusky v. Keiser, 128 Term. 705, 164 S. W. 777, L. R. A. 1016 C. 400; Dodge p. Hopkins, 14 Wis. 630; Hubbard p. Marshall, 50 Wis. 322, 6 N. W. 497 (statutory).

74 Lawrenaon v. Butler, 1 Sch. & Lefroy, 13, per Lord Redesdale. And see dicta of Chancellor Kent in Clason v. Bailey, 14 Johns. 486, and Gibson, C. J., in Wilson p. Clarke, 1 W. & S. 554.

75 See infra, Sec. 1437, and also cases of contracts relating to land in this section, n. 71,

76 See supra, Sec.Sec. 559 et seq.