THE NOTE OR MEMO RAM DUM IN WRITING. 25 



In order to sustain an action, there must be a good con- Memorandum 

 tract in existence at the time of action brought. There- ^^^^ ^^^^"^ 

 fore, a Memorandum in writing of a contract after action ^^ ^°^' 

 brought does not satisfy the Statute of Frauds {q). 



But though an agreement be not in writing, as required A foreign 

 by this statute, it is not absohitely void, as the 4th section contract, 

 relates to the mode of procedure, and not to the contract 

 itself. Therefore, although such contract is void, so far as 

 no action can be brought on it in this country, there is 

 nothing in the statute to prevent any foreign Court from 

 giving force to the contract (r) . 



THE SIGNATURE BY THE PARTY TO BE CHARGED. 



The Statute of Frauds requires that there should be a What is 

 Note or Memorandum of the contract in writing, signed by necessary. 

 tJw j^arty to he charged ; and the cases have decided that, 

 although the Signature be in the beginning or middle of 

 the instrument, it is as binding as if at the foot of it, the 

 question being always open to the Jury, whether the party 

 not having signed it regularly at the foot, meant to be 

 bound by it as it then stood, or whether he left it so un- 

 signed, because he refused to complete it (.s'). 



The Christian name of the Signature may be set out at As to initials, 

 length or denoted by the initial, or left out altogether it) ; 

 but it seems that the surname must be written at length, 

 and that the mere initials will not suffice iii). A mark by 

 a person unable to write may suffice if sufficiently iden- 

 tified ('^?). An unsigned postscript commencing, "I had 

 quite omitted to tell you and Martin," on a separate piece 

 of paper, enclosed in the same envelope with, but not re- 

 ferred to by, a letter signed with initials, is not sufficient 

 to satisfy the statute {x) . 



If a man be in the habit of printing instead of writing Where a man 

 his name, he may be said to sign by his printed as well as Points hia 

 his written name {//). And an invoice with "Bought of "'^°^*^- 

 Norris & Co." printed on it, which was filled up in the 



(q) Bill V. Banicnt, 9 M. & W. («) Sweet v. Lee, 3 M. & G. 452, 



36. 460. 



(?•) Leroux v. Broivn, 16 Jur. (v) Chitty on Contracts, 10th ed. 



1021 (C. B.) . 362. 



(«) Per Lord Abinger, C. B., (.r) Kronheim v. Johnson, L. R., 



Johnsonv. Lodgson, 2 M. & W. 659. 7 Ch. D. 60 ; 47 L. J., Ch. 132 ; 



[l) Lohb V. Stanleij, 5 Q. B. 574, 37 L. T., N. S. 752. 



58i. {y) Saiindcrson v. Jackson, 2 B. & 



P. 238. 



