The original idea is, that the words, include all kinds of corporeal movable property, and the English decisions held that the statute did not apply to incorporeal rights and property such as stocks, and shares, etc.7 The English rule has been followed in part in the United States,8 but the majority of the decisions are to the contrary, the Massachusetts court, for instance, has decided that a sale of promissory notes is within the statute,9 as is also the sale of shares in a manufacturing corporation,10 and the Maryland and Connecticut courts have held the same. The Maine court has held a sale of bank notes is within the statute.11 So it may be said that the term, goods, wares and merchandise, includes both corporeal and in a qualified sense at least, incorporeal personal property, according to the general rule in the United States.

2 Davis vs. Rowell, 2 Pick. (Mass.),

64. 3 Dowling vs. McKenny, 124 Mass.,

478. 4 Carpenter vs. Galloway, 73 Ind., 418.

5 Jenness vs. Wendell, 51 N. H., 63.

6 Harman vs. Reeve, 18 C. B., 587.

7 Tempest vs. Kilner, 3 C. B., 249;

Duncroft vs. Albrecht, 3 M. & W., 422.

8 Vauter vs. Griffin, 40 Ind., 593.