The written contract or memorandum required by the statute does not necessarily consist of one writing alone. It may as well consist of two or more writings.1 If the offer is made in one instrument and acceptance is made in another the two instruments may be considered together.2 A letter written by one party to the other and an answer thereto by such other may constitute a sufficient memorandum, if signed by the respective party, and showing on their face that they refer to the same transaction, the terms of which are sufficiently set forth.3 Thus

18 Newport News, etc., Co. v. By. Co., 97 Va. 19; 32 S. E. 789; Central Land Co. v. Johnston, 95 Va. 223; 28 S. E. 175.

19 Sanders v. Bryer, 152 Mass. 141; 9 L. R. A. 255; 25 N. E. 86; Peevey v. Haughton, 72 Miss. 9)8; 48 Am. St. Rep. 592; 18 So. 357; 17 So. 378. Except when the bill seeks to avoid the contract on the ground of the statute of frauds. Davis v. Ross (Tenn. Ch. App.), 50 S. W. 650.

20Gough v. Williamson, 62 N. J. Eq. 526; 50 Atl. 323; Peay v. Seig-ler, 48 S. C. 496; 59 Am. St. Rep. 731; 26 S. E. 885. Provided such answer does not plead the statute as a defense.

21 Cash v. Clark. 61 Mo. App. 636.

1Strouse v. Elting, 110 Ala. 132; 20 So. 123; Turner v. Lorillard Co., 100 Ca. 645: 62 Am. St. Rep. 345; 28 S. E. 383: McBrayer v. Cohen. 92 Ky. 479; 18 S. W. 123; Freeland v. Ritz, 154 Mass. 257; 26 Am. St. Rep. 244; 12 L. R. A. 561; 28 N. E. 226; Olson v. Sharpless, 53 Minn. 91; 55 N. W. 125; Atlantic Phosphate Co. v. Sullivan, 34 S. C. 301; 13 S. E. 539; Anderson v. Mfg. Co., 30 Wash. 147; 70 Pac. 247.

2Gerli v. Mfg. Co., 57 N. J. L. 432; 51 Am. St. Rep. 611; 30 L. R. A. 61; 31 Atl. 401.

3 Cooper v. Gas Co., 127 Fed. 482; Drovers' National Bank v. Bank, 44 Fed. 183; Alford v. Wilson, 20 Fed. 96; Thames Loan and Trust Co- v. Beville, 100 Ind. 309; Wills v. Ross. 77 Ind. 1; 40 Am. Rep. 279; Austin v. Davis, 128 Ind. 472; 25 Am. St. Rep. 456; 12 L. R. A. 120; 26 N. E. 890; Surface v. Leffingwell, 6 Kan. App. 319; 51 Pac. 73; Williams v. Smith, 161 Mass. 248; 37 N. E. 455; Corning v. Loomis, 111 Mich. 23; 69 N. W. 85; Fowler Elevator Co. v. Cottrell. 38 Neb. 512; 57 X. W. 19; Hickey v. Dole, 66 N. H. 336 an order sent by A on a blank form furnished by B, showing in detail the goods ordered by A from B, and a letter from B to A acknowledging the receipt of the order and promising to ship at once, make a sufficient memorandum.4 The same rule applies to letters and telegrams,5 or to telegrams interchanged between the parties,6 whereby an agreement is reached. So a reference in a memorandum to a deed,7 or to a decree of a court and to tax deeds and receipts,8 or to notes executed by a third person,9 may be sufficient to incorporate such document in the mem- • orandum and thereby to supply deficiencies in the latter. Express reference from one instrument to another is not necessary if the two instruments show on their face that they refer to the same transaction.10 So a memorandum and a receipt,11 or a power of attorney and a contract executed thereunder,12 or book entries and checks,13 or letters and a subsequent deed,14 or a written lease signed by lessor and a subsequent written acceptance signed by the lessee,15 or a letter, a telegram, and a deed,16 or a memorandum and a pleading,17 may show on their face that they refer to the same transaction, and hence may be read together. So a petition describing the route of a sewer, a resolution of the city council, and a bond, may show that they refer to a common subject matter, and be read together.18 It is not necessary that all the writings which constitute the memorandum should be signed by the party to be charged therewith. If one writing signed by such party so refers to another writing, which is either unsigned, or signed by some other party, as to connect the two, they may be read as one memorandum.19 Thus a reference in a signed memorandum to an unsigned contract,20 or to a lease to be executed thereafter,21 or a reference in an order of the court binding on the county to a bid made by a contractor and signed by him alone,22 may connect such other instrument with the memorandum. So a letter signed by a vendee, and declining to perform the contract set forth in an unsigned memorandum, may be read in connection with such unsigned memorandum to prove such contract.23 Physical connection of the signed memorandum with the instrument to which it refers may establish a connection in meaning. Thus an indorsement of assignment on the back of a deed,24 or a stock certificate,25 may be sufficient to supplement deficiencies of the assignment in description. So the deficiencies of a lease may be supplied from an annexed contract.26 So signing a bond, attached to the contract for the performance of which it is executed may be equivalent to signing the contract.27 While physical connection is helpful, it is not of itself sufficient to establish connection in meaning. Thus a receipt for part payment on a lot, the description of which is not given, is insufficient though on the back of the receipt is indorsed "The lot No. 14 Eakin avenue."28 Since the memorandum cannot be in part oral, however, it is necessary to constitute a sufficient memorandum that the several writings should, either by express reference or by reference to the same subject matter, show on their face their connection one with the other. If oral evidence is necessary to connect them, they cannot be read together as one memorandum or contract under the statute.29 So where the reference in the signed memorandum describes an instrument different from the unsigned instrument offered in evidence to supplement the signed memorandum, oral evidence is inadmissible to contradict the reference and to show that the unsigned instrument offered was the one intended by the parties. Thus where the signed memorandum referred to specifications "signed by the parties," oral evidence could not be received to show that certain unsigned specifications were intended.30

49 Am. St. Rep. 614; 31 Atl. 900; Peay v. Seigler, 48 S. C. 496; 59 Am. St. Rep. 731; 26 S. E. 885; Kearby v. Hopkins, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 166; 36 S. W. 506; Shrewsbury v. Tufts, 41 W. Va. 212; 23 S. E. 692; Singleton v. Hill, 91 Wis. 51; 51 Am. St. Rep. 868; 64 N. W. 588.

4 Wilkinson v. Mfg. Co., 67 Miss. 231; 7 So. 356.

5 Stevenson v. McLean, L. R. 5 Q. B. Div. 346; Bibb v. Allen, 149 U. S. 481; Ryan v. United States, 136 U. S. 68; Kleinhans v. Jones, 68 Fed. 742; 15 C. C. A. 644; Elbert v. Gas Co., 97 Cal. 244; 32 Pac. 9; Crystal, etc., Co. v. Butterfleld, 15 Colo. App. 246; 61 Pac. 479; Smith v. Easton, 54 Md. 138; 39 Am. Rep. 355; Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87; 85 N. W. 942; Trevor v. Wood, 36 N. Y. 307; 93 Am. Dec. 511; Eckert v. Schoch, 155 Pa. St. 530; 26 Atl. 654; Watson v. Baker, 71 Tex. 739;

9 S. W. 867; Underwood v. Stack, 15 Wash. 497; 46 Pac. 1031.

6 Utley v. Donaldson, 94 U. S. 29 ; Brewer v. Horst-Lachmund Co., 127 Cal. 643; 50 L. R. A. 240; 60 Pac. 418; Gaines v. McAdam, 79 111. App. 201.

7 Hibbard v. Storage-Battery Co., 174 Mass. 296; 54 N. E. 658.

8 Everman v. Herndon (Miss.), 11 So. 652.

9 Rowell v. Dunwoodie, 69 Vt. Ill; 37 Atl. 227.

10 White v. Breen, 106 Ala. 159; 32 L. R. A. 127; 19 So. 59.

11 Oliver v. Hunting, L. R. 44 Ch. D. 205; Peay v. Seigler, 48 S. C. 496; 59 Am. St. Rep. 731; 26 S. E. 885.

12 White v. Breen, 106 Ala. 159; 32 L. R. A. 127;. 19 So. 59.

13 Baldwin v. Trowbridge, 62 N. J. Eq. 468; 50 Atl. 494.

14 Leonard v. Woodruff, 23 Utah 494; 65 Pac. 199.

15 Woodruff v. Butler, 75 Conn. 679; 55 Atl. 167.

16 Underwood v. Stack, 15 Wash. 497; 46 Pac. 1031.

17 Sanders v. Bryer, 152 Mass. 141; 9 L. R. A. 255; 25 N. E. 86.

18 Stevens v. Muskegon, 111 Mich. 72; 36 L. R. A. 777; 67 N. W. 227.

19 See the cases cited Sec. 1115. Wilkinson v. Mfg. Co.. 67 Miss. 231; 7 So. 356; Fowler Elevator Co. v. Cot-trell, 38 Neb. 512; 57 N. W. 19; Newton v. Bronson, 13 N. Y. 587; 67 Am. Dec. 89.

20 Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87; 85 N. W. 942.

21Freeland v. Ritz, 154 Mass. 257 ; 26 Am. St, Rep. 244; 12 L. R. A. 561; 28 N. E. 226. (If in fact executed before the action is brought.)

22 Bryson v. Johnson County. 100 Mo. 76: 13 S. W. 239.

23 Louisville Asphalt Varnish Co. v. Lorick. 29 S. C. 533; 2 L. R. A. 212: 8 S. E. 8.

24Tunstall v. Cobb, 109 N. C. 316; 14 S. E. 28.

25 Flowers v. Steiner, 108 Ala. 440; 19 So. 321.

26 Thomas v. Drennen, 112 Ala. 670; 20 So. 848. (In this case the contract was written on one side of the paper; the lease on the other.)

27 Busch v. Hart, 62 Ark. 330; 35 S. W. 534.

28 Wilstach v. Heyd, 122 Ind. 574; 23 N. E. 963.

29 Coombs v. Wilkes (1891), 3 Ch. 77; Potter v. Peters, 64 L. J. Ch. N. S. 357; Strong v. Bent, 31 N. S. 1; Duff v. Hopkins, 33 Fed. 599; Alba v. Strong, 94 Ala. 163; 10 So. 242; Devine v. Warner, 76 Conn. 229; 56 Atl. 562; Turner v. Loril-lard Co., 100 Ga. 645; 62 Am. St. Rep. 345; 28 S. E. 383; Ross v. Allen, 45 Kan. 231; 10 L. R. A.

835; 25 Pac. 570; Kingsley v. Sie-brecht, 92 Me. 23; 69 Am. St. Rep. 486; 42 Atl. 249; Third National Bank v. Stell, 129 Mich. 434; 88 N. W. 1050; Swallow v. Strong, 83 Minn. 87; 85 X. W. 942; Nibert v. Baghurst, 47 X. J. Eq. 201; 20 Atl. 252; Johnson v. Buck. 35 N. J. L. 338; Ward v. Hasbrouck, 169 X. Y. 407; 62 X. E. 434; Falls of Neuse Mfg. Co. v. Hendricks, 106 X. C. 485; 11 S. E. 568; Moore v. Powell. 6 Tex. Civ. App. 43; 25 S. W. 472; Darling v. Cumming, 92 Va. 521; 23 S. E. 880.

30 Donnelly v. Adams. 115 Cal. 129; 46 Pac. 916.