Such contracts are said by many courts to be voidable.1 This term is more nearly correct than "void," but it may be doubted whether it is the correct term to "use, at least in many jurisdic tions a contract is "voidable" in the proper sense from some

Third National Bank v. Steel, 129 Mich. 434; 88 N. W. 1050; Heaton v. Eldridge, 56 O. S. 87; 60 Am. St. Rep. 737; 36 L. R. A. 817; 46 N. E. 638.

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

20 See Sec. 321.

21 Contract not to be performed within one year, Stout v. Ennis, 28 Kan. 706.

22 Anderson v. Best, 176 Pa. St. 498; 35 Atl. 194.

23 Hall v. Soule, 11 Mich. 494. (But in this state oral contracts within the statute are held to be void.) Sale of goods, North v. Forest, 15 Conn. 400.

24 Detroit, etc., R. R. v. Forbes, 30 Mich. 165.

1 Thus in Lowman v. Sheets. 124 Ind. 416; 7 L. R. A. 784; 24 N. E. 351, such a contract is said to be "not void but merely voidable." defect in its formation, and as we shall see later,2 the better view of the statute of frauds is that it has nothing to do with the formation of the contract, but merely with the evidence by which the contract is to be proved.