If the memorandum sets forth the requisite facts, and is in writing and duly signed, its form is immaterial.1 A memorandum showing all the terms of the contract is sufficient, although the parties intended to execute a formally drafted contract thereafter.2 If the terms of the contract under which they are exe-cuted are sufficiently set forth therein, a deed,3 a will,4 a receipt,5 an assignment,6 or a note,7 as a bought and sold note,8 or a draft,9 or a sheriff's return,10 is a sufficient memorandum. A letter,11 or a telegram,12 addressed to the adversary party; or a letter written and signed by the party to the contract to be charged therewith, addressed not to the adversary party to the contract, but to another person, may be a sufficient memorandum.13 The records of a corporation if signed properly by an agent of the corporation and setting forth the terms of a contract sufficiently may be a sufficient memorandum.14 Examples of this principle are found in the records of a council of a public corporation,15 in the resolutions of a bridge committee,16 or the records of the board of directors of a private corporation, duly signed by the proper officers,17 as by the president and the secretary.18 A pleading of fact, such as a bill in equity,19 or an answer,20 may set up the contract so as to constitute a sufficient memorandum thereof. A deposition which one party to an action on an oral contract is compelled to give at the instance of the adversary party is not a memorandum of the contract though in writing and signed by such party.21

20Whiton v. Whiton, 179 111. 32; 53 X. E. 722; affirming 76 111. App. 553. (An obiter, as the contract to becqueath personalty solely.) Brin-ker v. Brinker, 7 Pa. St. 53.

21 Smith v. Tuit, 127 Pa. St. 341; 14 Am. St. Rep. 851; 17 Atl. 995.

22 Champlin v. Champlin, 136 111. 309; 29 Am. St. Rep. 323; 26 X. E. 526; Hale v. Hale, 90 Va. 728; 19 S. E. 739.

23 See Sec. 687.

24 Cumberland, etc.. Ry. v. Ry. - Ky.-; 77 S. W. 690.

1 California Canneries Co. v. Sea-tena. 117 Cal. 447: 49 Pac. 462; McConnell v. Brillhart, 17 111. 354;

65 Am. Dec. 661; Hurley v. Brown, 98 Mass. 545; 96 Am. Dec. 671; Singleton v. Hill, 91 Wis. 51; 51 Am. St. Rep. 868; 64 X. W. 588.

2 Gray v. Smith, L. R. 43 Ch. D. 208.

3 Folmar v. Carlisle, 117 Ala. 449; 23 So. 551. (In this case the deed and note given therefor were read together.) Johnston v. Jones. 85 Ala. 286; 4 So. 748; Prignon v. Daussat, 4 Wash. 199: 31 Am. St. Rep. 914; 29 Pac. 1046. (The deed recited that it was given in consideration of the promise of the grantee to marry the grantor.)

4Shroyer v. Smith, 204 Pa. St.

310; 54 Atl. 24. (Devising realty to the same person to whom it had already been conveyed by parol.)

5 Tyler v. Onzts, 93 Ky. 331; 20 S. W. 256; Merson v. Merson, 101 Mich. 55; 59 N. W. 441; Gardels v. Kloke, 36 Neb. 493; 54 N. W. 834.

6McClintock v. Oil Co., 146 Pa. St. 144; 23 Atl. 211.

7 Reynolds v. Kirk, 105 Ala. 446; 17 So. 95.

8 Bibb v, Allen, 149 U. S. 481. 9Neaves v. Mining Co., 90 N. C.

412; 47 Am. Rep. 529.

10 Remington v. Linthicum, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 84; Elfe v. Gadsden, 2 Rich. Law. (S. C.) 373.

11 Mizell v. Bennett, 4 Jones L. (N. C.) 249; 69 Am. Dec. 744; Gulf, etc., Ry. v. Settegast, 79 Tex. 256; 15 S. W. 228.

12 North v. Mendel, 73 Ga. 400; 54 Am. Rep. 879.

13 Miller v. R. R., 58. Kan. 189; 48 Pac. 853; Cunningham v. Williams, 43 Mo. App. 629; Peay v. Seigler, 48 S. C. 496; 59 Am. St. Rep. 731; 26 S. E. 885; Singleton v. Hill, 91 Wis. 51; 51 Am. St. Rep. 868; 64 N. W. 588.

14 Greenville v. Waterworks Co., 125 Ala. 625; 27 So. 764; Lamkin v. Mfg. Co., 72 Conn. 57; 44 L. R. A. 786; 43 Atl. 593, 1042; Grimes v. Hamilton Co., 37 la. 290; Mc-Manus v. Boston, 171 Mass. 152; 50 N. E. 607; Argus Co. v. Albany, 55 N. Y. 495; 14 Am. Rep. 296; Mar-den v. Champlin, 17 R. I. 423; 22 Atl. 938.

15 Greenville v. Waterworks Co., 125 Ala. 625; 27 So. 764; Chase v. Lowell, 7 Gray (Mass.) 33; Curtis v. Portsmouth, 67 N. H. 506; 39 Atl. 439; Argus Co. v. Albany. 55 N. Y. 495; 14 Am. Rep. 296; Mar-den v. Champlin, 17 R. I. 423; 22 Atl. 938.

16 Rollins Investment Co. v. George, 48 Fed. 776.

17 Jones v. Victoria, etc., Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 314; Lamkin v. Mfg. Co., 72 Conn. 57; 44 L. R. A. 786; 43 Atl. 593, 1042; Tufts v. Plymouth, etc., Co., 14 All. (Mass.) 407.