12 IIORSF, ^V.^RRA^•TY. 



It should bo noted, that there is a considerahlo 

 distinction hctweon the 4th section and the 17th 

 section of the Statute of Frauds. In Sailx. liour- 

 (li/hii {)i), the judges said: *'Tho memorandum 

 states all that Avas to be done by the person charged ; 

 and, according to Eycrton v. JLif/icics (o), that is 

 sufficient to satisfy the 17th section of tlie Statute 

 of Frauds, though not to make a valid agreement 

 in cases within the 4th section." A memorandum 

 of a bargain is sufficient, although it only contain 

 a proposal, if it can be proved by parol that such 

 proposal "was accepted ( ]>) . 

 If pricp If the price has been agreed upon, that should 



ihathhould bo mentioned in the note. lu Elmore v. K'nuj- 

 tkii™d"in ^^^^(v)* tbere had been a verbal sale of a horse for 

 note. 200 guineas, and the i)laintill" tried to prove his 



case, as within the statute, by producing a letter 

 from the defendant in these words, "^fr. Kingcoto 

 begs to inform Mr. Elmore that if the hoiTsO can 

 bo proved to bo five years old on the 10th of this 

 month, he shall bo most ha]»]iy to take him, and if 

 not most clearly jirovcd, ^Ir. Iv. will most de- 

 cidedly have nothing to do with him." This was 

 lield insuflicient. Tiio Couil saying, "The price 

 agreed to bo paid constituted a material part of 



(«) 2G L. J., C. r. Ts ; 1 C. U., N. S. 1S8. 

 (o) G Ea«t, 307. 



\p) IUiu$ T. I'ic/itUy, L. n., 1 Kxdi. 312 ; 3'; L. J., Exch, 

 218. 



(y) 5B. &C. 683; 8 D. i U. :iV.i. 



