This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Second, the memorandum must show who are the parties to the contract and their relation thereto; "not only who is the promisor, but who is the promisee as well.1 Thus a memorandum which does not in some way indicate the vendor, as where only the auctioneer is indicated,2 or the agent of the vendor,3 is insufficient. So a memorandum which does not show who the vendee is, is insufficient.4 So a deed by a trustee which
8 Koch v. Williams. 82 Wis. 186; 52 N. W. 257.
9 Russell v. Blair, 18 Wash. 339; 51 Pac. 477.
10 Kleinhans v. Jones, 68 Fed. 742; 15 C. C. A. 644; Carskaddon v. South Bend, 141 Ind. 596, 601; 39 N. E. 667; 41 N. E. 1; Hastings v. Weber, 142 Mass. 232; 56 Am. Rep. 671; 7 N. E. 846.
11Martin v. Haubner, 26 Can. S. C. 142.
1 Oglesby Grocery Co. v. Mfg. Co., 112 Ga. 359; 37 S. E. 372. To the same effect are Grafton v. Cum-mings, 99 U. S. 100; American Oak Leather Co. v. Porter, 94 la. 117; 62 N. W. 658; Lincoln v. Preserving Co., 132 Mass. 129; Coddington v. Goddard. 16 Gray (Mass.) 436; Mc-Keag v. Piednoir, 74 Mo. App. 593; Carrick v. Mincke, 60 Mo. App. 140; Brown v. Whipple, 58 N. H. 229; Mentz v. Newwitter. 122 N. Y. 491 ; 19 Am. St. Rep. 514; 11 L. R. A.
97; 25 N. E. 1044. Salmon Falls Mfg. Co. v. Goddard, 14 How. (U. S.) 446, holds that the memorandum need not identify the parties. This case has been criticised in Grafton v. Cummings, 99 U. S. 100, and disapproved in Mentz v. Newwitter, 122 N. Y. 491; 19 Am. St. Rep. 514; 11 L. R. A. 97; 25 N. E. 1044.
2McGovern v. Hern, 153 Mass. 308; 25 Am. St. Rep. 632; 10 L. R. A. 815; 26 N. E. 861; Mentz v. New-witter, 122 N. Y. 491; 19 Am. St. Rep. 514; 11 L. R. A. 97; 25 N. E. 1044.
3 Coombs v. Wilkes (1891), 3 Ch. 77; Ross v. Allen, 45 Kan. 231; 10 L. R. A. 835; 25 Pac. 570. Contra, where only the agent of the vendor was indicated. Mantz v. Maguire, 52 Mo. App. 136. If the vendor is indicated, signature by the agent is. of course, sufficient.
4 Lewis v. Wood, 153 Mass. 321; 11 L. R. A. 143; 26 N. E. 862; Catpurports to discharge part of the land from the operation of the trust deed is not sufficient as a contract where it does not show that the trustee was acting for the creditors nor does it show any particular person as grantee.5
It is not, however, necessary that either party be named. If indicated in any mannner with sufficient certainty, the memorandum is not on this account defective.6 Thus a description of vendors of realty as "Phillips & Bro.,"7 or a description of parties acting as vendors of personalty as agents of certain named principals,8 is sufficient. So a grant of a "further lease" shows that the lessee is to be the former tenant though he is not named.9 So an offer made to an agent, without naming his principal but accepted by the agent on behalf of his principal, naming him, sufficiently shows that such principal is a party to the contract.10