If the outward form of the memorandum is in compliance with law, its sufficiency then depends on its contents. By the provisions of the statute, the contract must be proved by writing. No provision is made for oral evidence as proof of terms omitted from the written memorandum. Accordingly the memorandum must, in general, set forth with sufficient certainty the essentials of the agreement. This usually includes the fact that there is a contract, the parties, their relation to the contract, the subject-matter, the terms and, sometimes, the consideration.1

Phillips v. Cornelias (Miss.) , 28 So. 871; Haubelt v. Mill Co., 77 Mo. App. 672; Wheeler v. Walden, 17 Neb. 122; 22 N. W. 346; Dykers v. Townsend, 24 N. Y. 57; J. M. Hayes Woolen Co. v. McKinnon, 114 N. C. 661; 19 S. E. 761; Hargrove v. Ad-cock, 111 N. C. 166; 16 S. E. 16; Brodhead v. Reinbold, 200 Pa. St. 618; 86 Am. St. Rep. 735; 50 Atl. 229; Hall v. White, 123 Pa. St. 95; 16 Atl. 521; Tynan v. Dulling (Tex. Civ. App.) , 25 S. W. 465, 818.

4 See Sec. 1148.

5 Salmon Falls Mfg. Co. v. God-dard, 14 How. (U. S.) 446.

6 Evans v. Hare (1892), 1 Q. B. 593.

1 Turner v. Prevost, 17 Can. S. C. 283; Grafton v. Cummings, 99 U. S. 100; Williams v. Morris, 95 U. S. 444; Littell v. Jones, 56 Ark. 139; 19 S. W. 497; O'Donnell v. Leeman, 43 Me. 158; 69 Am. Dee. 54; Elliot v. Barrett, 144 Mass. 256; 10 N. E. 820; Atwood v. Cobb, 16 Pick.

(Mass.) 227; 26 Am. Dec. 657; Gault v. Stormont, 51 Mich. 636; 17 X. W. 214; Clampet v. Bells, 39 Minn. 272; 39 N. W. 495; Sherburne v. Shaw, 1 N. H. 157; 8 Am. Dec. 47; Mentz v. Newwitter, 122 N. Y. 491; 19 Am. St. Rep. 514; 11 L. R. A. 97; 25 N. E. 1044; Drake v. Seaman, 97 N. Y. 230; Davidson v. Land Co., 126 N. C. 704; 36 S. E. 162; Hall v. Fisher, 126 N. C. 205; 35 S. E. 425; Corbitt v. Gaslight Co., 6 Or. 405; 25 Am. Rep. 541; Rineer v. Collins, 156 Pa. St. 342; 27 Atl. 28; Masterson v. Little, 75 Tex. 682; 13 S. W. 154 "It must contain the essential terms of the contract expressed with such a degree of certainty that it may be understood without recourse to parol evidence to show the intention of the parties. . . . Accordingly, it must show who are the contracting parties, intelligently identify the subject-matter involved, express the consideration, be signed by the party with the statute. As oral evidence is inadmissible to supply defects in such memoranda, it is often impossible to determine in specific cases which sort of defect is under consideration. The details of these elements must be discussed hereafter.

If it contains these elements it is sufficient;2 but if any of them are lacking and must be supplied by parol, the memorandum is insufficient,3 both at law,4 and in equity." While an incomplete memorandum in writing of a contract which need neither be in writing nor be proved by writing may be supplemented by oral evidence to show what the real contract is,6 no such supplemental evidence can be considered in case of a contract the terms of which must be proved by writing. So a written offer within the statute of frauds amended by telephone and accepted as amended is insufficient.7 It may be here observed that a memorandum of an alleged contract under the statute of frauds may be defective for either of two reasons: the alleged contract between the parties may be lacking in some essential element and this deficiency will, of course, appear on the memorandum;8 or the oral contract may be complete but its terms may not be carried into the memorandum with sufficient certainty to comply to be charged and disclose the terms and conditions of the agreement." Catterlin v. Bush, 39 Or. 496, 501; 65 Pac. 1064, 1065.

2 Homan v. Stewart, 103 Ala. 644; 16 So. 35; Newton v. Lyon, 62 Kan. 306; 62 Pac. 1000; affirmed on rehearing, 62 Kan. 651; 64 Pac. 592; Alford v. Wilson, 95 Ky. 506; 26 S. W. 539; McDonald v. Fernald, 68 N. H. 171; 38 Atl. 729; Jones v. Davis, 48 N. J. Eq. 493; 21 Atl. 1035; Peck v. Goff, 18 R. I. 94; 25 Atl. 690; Abba v. Smyth, 21 Utah 109; 59 Pac. 756.

3 Peoria Grape Sugar Co. v. Bab-cock Co., 67 Fed. 892; Jackson v. Telephone Exchange, 108 Ga. 646; 34 S. E. 207; North v. Mendel, 73 Ga. 400; 54 Am. Rep. 879; Wright V. Raftree, 181 111. 464; 54 N. E. 998; Watt v. Cranberry Co., 63 la. 730; 18 N. W 898; Proctor v. Plum-er, 112 Mich. 393; 70 N. W. 1028; Renz v. Stoll, 94 Mich. 377; 34 Am. St. Rep. 358; 54 X. W. 276: Ship-man v. Campbell, 79 Mich. 82; 44

X. W. 171; Messmore v. Cunningham, 78 Mich. 623; 44 X. W. 145; McElroy v. Buck, 35 Mich. 434; Palmer v. Rolling Mill Co., 32 Mich. 274; Brown v. Munger, 42 Minn. 482; 44 X. W. 519; Ringer v. Holtz-claw, 112 Mo. 519; 20 S. W. 800; Schenck v. Improvement Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 44; 19 Atl. 881; Mentz v. Newwitter, 122 X. Y. 491; 19 Am. St. Rep. 514; 11 L. R. A. 97; 25 X. E. 1044.

4 Atwood v. Cobb, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 227; 26 Am. Dec. 657; Grafton v. Cummings, 99 U. S. 100; Patmore v. Haggard, 78 111. 607; Reid v. Ken-worthy, 25 Kan. 701; Riley v. Farnsworth, 116 Mass. 223.

5Minturn v. Baylis. 33 Cal. 129; Fry v. Platt, 32 Kan. 62; 3 Pac. 781; Holmes v. Evans, 48 Miss. 247; 12 Am. Rep. 372.

6 See Sec. 605, 1197. 1198.

7 Wiessner v. Aver, 176 Mass. 425: 57 X. E. 672.

8 See Sec. 27, 28, 45-47.