233 



This would turn upon the question whether the 

 shining was " earnest," paid to bind the bargain. 



Although I have pointed out the important dis- 

 tinction between contracts relating to land, and 

 those relating to goods, yet, as the doctrine relating 

 to the former has an important bearing on the 

 latter, so far as the subject of part delivery or 

 part payment is concerned, I will refer my readers 

 to the names of some cases, in which the doctrine 

 of part performance as to land was argued ; espe- 

 cially as the opinions of the courts seem to have 

 been 'divided on the subj ect. Vide Main v. Mel- 

 bourne, 4 Vesey, 720 ; Lord Fingall v. Ross, 2 

 Equity Abridgment, 46; Leak v. Morrice, 2 Chan- 

 cery cases, 135 ; Clinan v. Cooke, 1 Scholes and 

 Lefroy, 40 ; and Watt v. Evans, before Lord 

 Lyndhurst, at the Exchequer Sittings, after Trinity 

 term, 1834, in which all these cases are referred to. 



The third question which I mentioned as of 

 common occurrence under the statute, is whether 

 a note or memorandum in writing has been signed 

 by the parties or their authorized agents. This 

 question usually arises out of the careless manner 

 in which all occasional transactions of buying and 

 selling are recorded. It may be laid down as a 

 general rule, that if the substance of the contract, 

 that is, the price given, the article sold, and the 



