STATUTE OF FRAUDS. 535 



acted for them. A dispute having arisen about the weighing, and as 

 to the condition of the hops, the defendants refused to take them at all. 

 In consequence of the badness of the hop season in England, English 

 hops became suddenly almost unsaleable, and on November 3rd they 

 were not worth more than £8 per cwt., although the bargain had been 

 made on October 19th at £16 16s. per cwt. It was contended on the 

 defendants' behalf, that this being a contract for the sale of goods above 

 £10, there was no note or memorandum in writing made by the party 

 to be charged with the contract or by his agent thereunto lawfully 

 authorised, so as to satisfy the 17th section of the Statute of Frauds, 

 and a verdict for £420 was taken for the plaintiff, leave being reserved 

 to the defendants to move to enter a nonsuit. It was contended that 

 Noakes the factor was as much the agent of the defendants as the 

 plaintiff, just as a stock or sharebroker or an auctioneer would be 

 between a vendor and purchaser, that he made out the usual bought 

 and sold notes, and handed the bought note to the defendant, that the 

 defendants expressly directed him to alter the date, and that there was 

 evidence for the jury that Noakes was acting as the defendants' agent. 



In the Exchequer Chamber, the decision of the Court of Exchequer 

 was reversed, and it was held that there was evidence from which a 

 jury might find, that Noakes was the agent of the defendants as well 

 as of the plaintiff to draw up a record of the contract between them, 

 and that if he were, the writing by him of " Messi-s. Evans " was a 

 signature binding on the defendants within the 17th section of the 

 Statute of Frauds ; and per Byles J. : "It seems to me that there was 

 evidence sufficient to sanction a verdict for the plaintiff. It is plain 

 that the signature, though not at the foot of the document, but at the 

 beginning, is abundantly sufficient. Then in the first place, was the 

 plaintiff bound by what Noakes did ? The Messrs. Noakes were em- 

 ployed by him as factors ; there was therefore, no doubt, more evidence 

 against him than against the defendants. But the defendant and the 

 plaintifF knew what Noakes was doing. "What does the defendant do ? 

 Next of all he sees a duplicate written by the hand of the agent, and 

 he knows it is a counterpart of that which was binding on the plaintiff, 

 he knew what was delivered out to him was a sale note in duplicate, 

 and accepts and keeps it. The evidence of what the defendant did 

 both before and after Noakes had written the memorandum, shows 

 that Noakes was authorised by the defendant ; and the case comes 

 directly within the terms of Lord Abinger's judgment in Johnson v. 

 Dodgson (5 Taun. 786)." And per Keating J. : " There is abundance 

 of authority from Lemaijna v. Stcmleg (3 Lev. 1), -downwards, that the 

 name appearing on the face of the document is a sufficient signing 



