The statute allows the signature to be made "by the party to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized." Under this wording, the contract, note or memorandum may be signed by an authorized agent.1

13Wardell v. Williams, 62 Mich. 50; 4 Am. St. Rep. 814; 28 N. W. 796.

14 Guthrie v. Anderson, 47 Kan. 383; 28 Pac. 164; Ross v. Allen, 45 Kan. 231; 10 L. R. A. 835; 25 Pac. 570; Brown v. Snider, 126 Mich. 198; 85 N. W. 570; Yeager v. Kelsey, 46 Minn. 402; 49 X. W. 199; Zanderson v. Sullivan, 91 Tex. 499; 44 S. W. 484; affirming (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 1027.

15 Zanderson v. Sullivan. 91 Tex. 499; 44 S. W. 484: affirming (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 1027.

16 Hughes v. Gross, 166 Mass. 61; 55 Am. St. Rep. 375; 32 L. R. A. 620; 43 N. E. 1031.

17 Love v. Atkinson, 131 N. C. 544; 42 S. E. 966.

18 Wall v. Ry., 86 Wis. 48; 56 N. W. 367.

19 Ide v. Leiser, 10 Mont. 5; 24 Am. St. Rep. 17; 24 Pac. 695; Gar-trell v. Stafford, 12 Neb. 545; 41 Am. Rep. 767; 11 X. W. 732; Hutchinson v. Ry.. 37 Wis. 582.

20 Spence v. Apley (Neb.). 94 X. W. 109.

1 New England, etc., Co. v. Wors-

Whether the authority of the agent who signs the memorandum provided for by statute on behalf of his principal, must be in writing and signed by the principal in order to bind such principal, is a question which turns entirely on the wording of the particular statute. If the statute does not prescribe what form of authority is necessary, any form sufficient at common law will be sufficient under the statute. Accordingly if the statute provides that the memorandum is to be signed by the principal or by his agent thereunto "lawfully authorized," such authority need not be in writing,2 as the statute when thus worded does not attempt to prescribe the form of the agent's authority; Common Law rules apply; and any form of parol authority is sufficient in the execution of a parol instrument. So in contracts for the sale of an interest in realty, oral authority of an agent is sufficient.3 Thus even where indorsing a note in blank out of the chain of title does not operate in law as a guaranty, it authorizes the holder to write a guaranty over such blank signature to conform to the oral contract.4 If the statute provides that such memorandum must be signed by the principal or by his agent "authorized in writing" such authority must, of course, be in writing in the form prescribed by the statute.5 So ted Co., 165 Mass. 328; 52 Am. St. Rep. 516; 43 N. E. 112; Heffron v. Armsby, 61 Mich. 505; 28 N. W. 672; Gerli v. Mfg. Co., 57 N. J. L. 432; 51 Am. St. Rep. 611; 30 L. R. A. 61; 31 Atl. 401.

2 John Griffiths Cycle Corporation v. Humber (1899), 2 Q. B. 414; Rutenberg v. Main, 47 Cal. 213; McConnell v. Brillhart, 17 111. 354; 65 Am. Dec. 661; Columbia, etc., Co. v. Tinsley (Ky.) ; 60 S. W. 10; Talbot v. Bowen, 1 A. K. Mar. (Ky.) 436; 10 Am. Dec. 747; Peterson v. Russell, 62 Minn. 220; 54 Am. St. Rep. 634; 29 L. R. A. 612; 64 N. W. 555; Kennedy v. Ehlen, 31 W. Va. 540; 8 S. E. 398; Conaway v. Sweeney, 24 W. Va., 643; Ober v. Stephens, - W. Va., -; 46 S. E. 195.

3 Columbia, etc., Co. v. Tinsley (Ky.), 60 S. W. 10; Lindley v.

Keim, 54 N. J. Eq. 418; sub nom., O'Reilly v. Keim, 34 Atl. 1073; affirming (N. J. Eq.) 30 Atl. 1063; Kennedy v. Ehlen, 31 W. Va. 540; 8 S. E. 398.

4 Peterson v. Russell, 62 Minn. 220; 54 Am. St. Rep. 634; 29 L. R. A. 612; 64 N. W. 555.

5 Thompson v. Coal Co., 135 Ala. 630: 93 Am. St. Rep. 49; 34 So. 31; Castner v. Richardson, 18 Colo. 496; 33 Pac. 163; Albert son v. Ash-ton, 102 111. 50; Sigmund v. Newspaper Co.. 82 111. App. 178; Samuels v. Greenspan, 9 Kan. App. 140; 58 Pac. 482; Dickson v. Luman, 93 Ky. 614: 20 S. W. 1038; Newlin v. Hoyt. - Minn. -; 98 N. W. 323; in contracts for the sale of realty under such a statute, oral authority of the agent is not sufficient.6 Under some statutes, written authority of an agent is necessary only in certain classes of these contracts, as in contracts for the sale of some interest in realty,7 or the statute may require written authority of an agent acting for the vendor or lessor of realty, but not of an agent acting for a vendee,8 or lessee.9

Since a signature by an agent in the presence of his principal is in law the immediate signature of the principal himself and not that of the principal by his agent,10 an agent who without written authority signs a contract under the statute of frauds in the presence of his principal binds the principal.11 If the agent executes a conveyance, and not merely a contract for a conveyance, in the presence of the principal and at his express request, the same rule applies, and oral authority is sufficient.12

Pierce v. Clarke, 71 Minn. 114; 73 N. W. 522 (overruling on another point Hagelin v. Wacks, 61 Minn. 214; 63 N. W. 624).

6Borderre v. Den, 106 Cal. 594; 39 Pac. 946; Meux v. Hogue, 91 Cal. 442; 27 Pac. 744; Castner v. Richardson, 18 Colo. 496; 33 Pac. 163; Kozel v. Dearlove, 144 111. 23; 36 Am. St. Rep. 416; 32 N. E. 542; Baldwin v. Schiappacasse, 109 Mich. 170; 66 N. W. 1091; O'shea v. Rice, 49 Neb. 893; 69 N. W. 308; Brand-rup v. Britten, 11 N. D. 376; 92 N. W. 453; Utah, etc., Co. v. Garbutt, 6 Utah 342; 23 Pac. 758. In Mc-tosh v. Hodges, 110 Mich. 319; 68 X. W. 158, in deciding a case which the court held to be controlled by Illinois law, it was held that such authority need not under the Illinois statute then in force, be in writing; following Lake v. Campbell, 18 111. 106. On rehearing the court held that by reason of a change in the Illinois statute such authority had to be in writing, but the former judgment was adhered to on another point. See 110 Mich. 322; 70 N. W. 550, for opinion on rehearing.

7 Dickson v. Luman, 93 Ky. 614; 20 S. W. 1038; Pierce v. Clarke, 71 Minn. 114; 73 N. W. 522; Cockrell v. Mclntyre, 161 Mo. 59; 61 S. W. 648.

8 Rice-Dwyer Real Estate Co. v. Ruhlman, 68 Mo. App. 503.

9 Ehrmantraut v. Robinson, 52 Minn. 333; 54 N. W. 188.

10 See Sec. 574.

11 Ball v. Dunsterville, 4 T. R. 313; Morton v. Murray, 176 111. 54; 43 L. R. A. 529; 51 N. E. 767; Meyer v. King, 29 La. Ann. 567; Bigler v. Baker, 40 Neb. 325; 24 L. R. A. 255; 58 N. W. 1026. Contra, Bramel v. Byron (Ky.), 43 S. W. 695.

12Videau v. Griffin. 21 Cal. 389; Bartlett v. Drake, 100 Mass. 174; 97 Am. Dec. 92; 1 Am. Rep. 101; Gardner v. Gardner. 5 Cush. (Mass.) 483; 52 Am. Rep. 740; Bigler v. Baker. 40 Neb. 325; 24 L. R. A. 255; 58 N. W. 1026; McMurtry v. Brown, 6 Neb. 368; Mutual Benefit

The writing relied on as authority of the agent must show such authority on its face. So a note from A to B stating that A cannot meet B on account of illness, but that X will attend to the matter for A, is insufficient authority if it must be supplemented by evidence of prior oral negotiations for the exchange of land for mining stock to show what authority X had.13 Written authority to sell, however, shows authority to execute such memorandum as is necessary to make the sale binding.14 Written authority to sell need not fix the price at which the sale is to be made. Hence if the price is fixed in writing, a subsequent oral modification of such authority may be shown, fixing a lower price.15