26 



CONTRACTS CONCERNING HORSES, ETC. 



Names of 

 parties how- 

 to be shown. 



Signature for 

 another pur- 

 pose. 



body with the handwriting of Norris, was held to be, for 

 the purpose of the statute, signed by Noriis (s) . 



The statute requires that the note should be signed by 

 the party to be charged ; accordingly it is no objection that 

 it is not also signed by the other party, and consequently 

 that there is no remedy against him {a). But a note in 

 writing, signed by one party, will be insufficient, unless it 

 also specifies the name of the other party (h). A signature 

 -by the defendant, however, in the plaintiffs' order-book on 

 the fly-leaf, at the beginning of which were written the 

 plaintiffs' names, will do (c) . And where the defendant 

 accepted an offer to buy, by telegram, giving signed in- 

 structions to the telegraph clerk, this was held to be a 

 sufficient signature {d). If, on the other hand, the note in 

 writing is signed by the seller only, it will plainly be in- 

 sufficient to charge the buyer (e) . 



It is no objection to the signature that it was not made 

 to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, but in obedience to some 

 other statute ; so long as it is by the party to be charged 

 and attests the document which contains the terms of the 

 agreement, it is sufficient to satisfy the Statute of 

 Frauds (/). 



THE SIGNATURE BY AN AGENT. 



What is The statute requires some Note or Memorandum in 



necessary. writing, to be signed by the party to be charged, or his 

 Agent thereunto lawfuUij authorized, leaving us to the rules 

 of common law as to the mode in which the agent is to re- 

 ceive his authority. Now, in all other cases a subsequent 

 sanction is considered the same thing in effect as assent at 

 the time. Omnis ratihahitio retrotrahitur, ct mandato cequi- 

 2Mratur ; and the subsequent sanction of a contract, signed 

 by an agent, takes it out of the operation of the statute 

 more satisfactorily than an authority given beforehand. 



{£) Schneider v. Norris, 2 M. & S. 

 286. And see Tourrct v. C'ripps, 

 48 L. J., Ch. 567 ; 27 W. R. 706. 



{fi) Allen. V. Bennett, 3 Taunt. 

 160 ; Egcrton v. Mattheivs, 6 East, 

 307 ; Laytliroap v. Bryant, 2 Bing. 

 N. C. 744; Beussv. PicMcij, L. R., 

 1 Ex. 342, Ex. Ch. ; Buxton v. 

 Rust, L. R., 7 Ex. 279, Ex. Ch. 



[b) Williams v. Lake, 29 L. J., 

 Q. B. 1 ; Williams v. Byrnes, 9 

 Jur., N. S. 363 ; Williams v. Jor- 

 dan, L. R., 6 Ch. 517 ; 46 L. J., 



Ch. 681 ; 26 W. R. 230. 



(c) Sari V. Bourdillon, 26 L. J., 

 C. P. 78. 



{d) Godwin V. Francis, L. R., 5 

 C. P. 295 ; 39 L. J., C. P. 121 ; 22 

 L. T., N. S. 338. 



(e) Champioti v. Plumnicr, 1 B. & 

 P., N. R. 252 ; Cooper v. Smith, 15 

 East, 103. 



(/) Jo7ics V. Victoria Graving 

 Bock Co., L. R., 2 Q. B. D. 314; 

 46 L. J., Q. B. 219; 32 L. T., 

 N. S. 347. 



