CONTRACT TO GROW TURNIP SEED. 507 



opinion upon that, because on the former point I think tliere is a 

 sufficient note in writing." 



Ao-ain, in Waffs v. Friend, a verlal agreement between the plaintiff and 

 defendant, iliat the former shoidd furnish the latter with a quantify of 

 tirrnip-seed, which the defendant was to sow on his own land, and sell ayid 

 deliver the whole of the seed produced to the plaintiff at £1 Is. the Win- 

 chester bushel, was held by the Court of Queen's Bench to be within 

 the l7th section. It was substantially a contract for goods and chattels, 

 as the thing agreed to be delivered would at the time of delivery 

 be a personal chattel. The case therefore came within the above sec- 

 tion, and the contract being verbal only, and for goods of more than 

 £10 value, was not binding. And ^x^r Curiam: "It would indepen- 

 dently of that have been void by 5 Geo. IV. c. 74, which renders invalid 

 contracts of sale made by the Winchester bushel." The seed produced 

 was 240 bushels, and worth at that time not less than £1 10s. a bushel. 

 Upon this case the learned editors remark : " It would seem that the 

 case would not have been within the l7th section if the value of the 

 seed produced at the rate agreed for had been less than £10 ; and 

 therefore whether it would be within it or not, was uncertain at the 

 time when the agreement was made. Now it has been held that cases 

 depending upon contiugencies which may or may not happen within 

 the year, are not within the fourth section of the statute, even although 

 the event does not in fact happen within the year. It seems, therefore, 

 that the 17th section is in this respect to receive a different construction 

 from the 4th" {id).). 



Where, as in Sari v. Bourdillon, the defendant ivent into the plaintiff's 

 shop, and agreed to purchase certain goods in the aggregate exceeding the 

 value of £10, and the several articles with their respective prices were 

 entered in the plaintiff's "order-book," 07t ths flgleaf at the leginning 

 of which ivere wrifteii the names of the plaintiffs ; and the defendant 

 wrote his name and address at the foot of the entry, for the purpose of 

 verifying the bargain — this was held by the Court of Common Pleas 

 to be a sufficient signature of the contract by loth j^arfies to satisfy the 

 17th section of the statute. Cresswell J. said, "The memorandum 

 stated all that was to be done by the person charged, viz., the defen- 

 dant ; and according to Egcrton v. Matthews that is sufficient to satisfy 

 the 17th section, though not to make a valid agreement in cases within 

 the 4th. Moreover, the difficulty which may arise as to the sufficiency 

 of the precise candlestick supplied to fulfil the contract, is not greater 

 than that of identity, which even in an agreement under the 4th section 

 may be left to parol evidence. Thus in Spicer v. Cooper it was held 

 that ^ Sold 14: pockets Kent hops at 100s.' might be explained to mean 



