506 MEMORANDUM SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY STATUTE. 



Lops, and delivered tlicm to a carrier to be conveyed to Derby. The 

 defendant on Febrnary 27tli wrote to the plaintiif— " The hops I 

 bought of you on the 23rd of January are not yet arrived. I received 

 the invoice : the last were longer on the road than they ought to have 

 been ; however, if they do not arrive in a few days I must get some 

 elsewhere." It was held by the Court of Queen's Bench that the 

 invoice and this letter, even taken together, did not constitute a note 

 in writing of the contract to satisfy the 17th section of the Statute of 

 Frauds. 



In the case of Johnson v. Dodijson, the traveller of the plaintiff's, 

 hop-merchants in London, agreed with the defendant at Leeds for the 

 sale to him, by sample, of a quantity of hops. The defendant wrote in 

 his own book, which he kept, the following memorandum : — 



"Leeds, 19th October, 1836, sold John Dodgson 27 pockets Playsted, 

 1836, Sussex at 103s., the bulk to answer the sample ; four 

 pockets Selme, Beckley's at 95s. ; samples and invoice to be sent 

 per Rockingham coach ; payment in bankers' at two months." 



This was signed by the traveller on behalf of the plaintiffs, and on 

 the same day the defendant wrote the latter, requesting them to deliver 

 the hops to a third party. The bulk samples and invoice were sent to 

 the defendant by coach, pursuant to the contract ; but he returned them 

 as not answering to the samples by which he bought, but the jury fomid 

 that they did. It was contended for the defendant that there was no 

 suflRcient memorandum of the contract in writing to satisfy the Statute 

 of Frauds, the entry in the defendant's book not being signed by him, 

 and his subsequent letter not referring in sufficiently express terras to 

 the entry as that it might be connected with it ; but the Court of 

 Exchequer decided that the memorandum was sufficient. Parke B. said, 

 " The defendant's name was contained in it, in his own handwriting, 

 and it was signed by the plaintiff ; the point is in effect decided by 

 Saunchrson v. Jachson and ticlmeider v. Norris. There the bills of 

 parcels were held to be a suflicient memorandum in writing, it being 

 proved that they were recognized by being handed over to the other 

 party. Here the entry was written by the defendant himself, and 

 required by him to be signed by the plaintift"'s agent. That is amply 

 sufficient to show that he meant it to be a memorandum of contract 

 between the parties. If the question turned on the recognition by the 

 suVjsequcnt letter, I own I should have had considerable doubt whether 

 it referred sufficiently to the contract : it refers to the subject-matter, 

 but not to the specific contract. But it is unnecessary to give any 



