u 



CONTRACTS CONCERNING HORSES, ETC. 



Effect of part 

 payment. 



Written 

 agreement. 



No particular 

 form required. 



Names of the 



contracting 



parties. 



Terms of the 

 contract must 

 be stated. 



May be col- 

 lected from 

 more than one 

 document. 



Where there was a part payment for some animals, 

 which were deposited with a third party till the full amount 

 was paid, and two of them died, the loss was held to fall on 

 the purchaser (a). 



The Note or Memorandum in Writing. 



If there has heen either an agreement in writing, or a 

 parol agreement which is afterwards reduced into writing, by 

 the parties, that writing alone must be looked to, to ascer- 

 tain the terms of the contract (b). 



No particular form is necessary to constitute a good note 

 or memorandum in writing ; and a sold note (c) or a bill of 

 parcels is sometimes sufficient, where it can be proved that 

 it has been recognized by the other party (d). However, 

 there are certain requisites which must be contained ■within 

 the instrument, to satisfy the statute. 



The note or memorandum in writing must state who are 

 the contracting parties (e). But it is not necessary that 

 they should appear actually on the face of the memorandum ; 

 if, from the memorandum taken in connection with sur- 

 rounding circumstances, it clearly appear who they are, this 

 is sufficient (/). 



It must also state the terms upon which the contract is 

 made, because the word bargain means the terms upon 

 which the parties contract. As, for instance, in Bristoiv v. 

 Halford (g), the memorandum of agreement on the sale of 

 a race-horse called Baron Biel, was to the effect that the 

 defendant should purchase the horse for 300/. paid down, 

 100/. in three months, 100/. on the horse winning the 

 Goodwood Cup, and 1,000/. on his winning the St. Leger 

 Stakes, for which the defendant undertook to enter him. 



But though it does not state the terms upon which the 

 contract is made, it will be suiBcient to satisfy the statute, 

 if it distinctly refers to and recognizes another document, 

 which does contain them (h). The connection between the 



(o) Dyer T. Cou-ky, 17 L. J., 

 Q. B. 360. 



(b) Per Lord Abinger, C. B., 

 Allen V. Pink, i M. & W. 144. 



(c) JParton T. Crofts, 33 L. J., 

 C. P. 189 ; Siercwright v. Archi- 

 bald, 20 L. J., Q. E. 529. 



(d) See Johnson v. Dodgson, 2 M. 

 & W. 653; Thmell ». ^fa«s, 31 

 L. J., Ex. 337. 



(«) Williams V. Lal-e, 29 L. J., 

 Q. B. 1 ; Williams v. Byrnes, 9 



Jur., N. S. 363; Championv. Pltim- 

 mer, 1 N. E., B. & P. 252 ; 8 E. E. 

 795 ; Layihroap y. Bryant, 2 Bing., 

 N. S. 244 ; Williams t. Jordan, 

 6 Ch. D. 517; 46 L. J., Ch. 681. 



(/) Chitty on Contracts, 12th ed. 

 451. 



(g) Bristow v. Salford, before 

 Lord Campbell, C. J., West. C. P 

 Feb. 1, 1853. 



(h) Midgwayv. Wharton,21 1,. J., 

 Ch. 46. 



