THE SIGNATURE BY THE PARTr TO BE CHARGED. 21 



of paper, enclosed in the same envelope with, but not re- 

 ferred to by, a letter signed with initials, is not sufficient to 

 satisfy the statute {x). 



If a man be in the habit of printing instead of writing "Where a man 

 his name, he may be said to sign by his printed as well as P"^'"*^ l^i^ 

 his written name {y). And an invoice with "Bought of "''°^^' 

 Norris & Co." printed on it, which was filled up in the 

 body with the handwriting of Norris, was held to be, for 

 the purpose of the statute, signed by Norris (s) . 



The statute requires that the note should be signed by Names of 

 the party to be charged ; accordingly it is no objection that P^irties how to 

 it is not also signed by the other party, and consequently *^ ^ ^°' 

 that there is no remedy against him («). But a note in 

 writing, signed by one party, will be insufiScient, unless it 

 also specifies the name of the other party (5). A signature 

 by the defendant, however, in the plaintiffs' order-book on 

 the fly-leaf, at the beginning of which were written the 

 plaintiffs' names, will do (c). And where the defendant 

 accepted an offer to buy, by telegram, giving signed in- 

 structions to the telegraph clerk, this was held to be a 

 sufBcient signature {d). If, on the other hand, the note in 

 writing is signed by the seller only, it will plainly be in- 

 sufiicient to charge the buyer (e). 



It is no objection to the signature that it was not made Signature for 

 to satisfy the statute, but in obedience to some other another pur- 

 statute ; so long as it is by the party to be charged, and 

 attests the document which contains the terms of the agree- 

 ment, it is sufficient (/). 



The Signature by an Agent. 



The statute requires some note or memorandum in What is 

 writing, to be signed by the party to be charged, or his iiecessary. 



[x) Zronheimy. Johnson, 7 Ch. D. Bust, L. E., 7 Ex. 279, Ex. Ch. 



60; 47 L. J., Ch. 132; 37 L. T., (J) Williams m. Lake, 29 L. J., 



N. S. 752. Q. B. 1 ; Williams v. Byrnes, 9 



{y) Saunderson y. Jackson, 2 B. & Jur., N. S. 363 ; Williams v. Jor- 



P. 238; 5 E. E. 580. dan, L. R., 6 Ch. 517; 46 L. J., 



(s) /Schneider t. Mrris, 2 M. & S. Ch. 681 ; 26 W. E. 230. 



286; 15 E. R. 250. And see Tour. {c) Sari v. Bourdillon, 26 L. J., 



ret T. Cripps, 48 L. J., Ch. 567 ; 27 C. P. 78. 



v. E. 706. {d) Godwin v. Francis, L. E., 5 



(«) Allen T. Bennett, 3 Taunt. C. P. 295 ; 39 L. J., C. P. 121 ; 22 



169; 12 E. E. 633; Egerton v. L. T., N. S. 338. 



Matthews, 6 East, 307 ; 8 E. R. («) Champion v. Phonmer, 1 B. & 



489 ; Laythroap v. Bryant, 2 Bing. P., N. E. 252 ; 8 E. E. 795 ; Cooper 



lS.C.7ii;SeussY.Ficksley,L.'R., t. -S»Jirt, 15Bast,103; 13E. R. 397. 



1 Ex. 342, Ex. Ch. ; Buxton t. (/) Jones v. Victoria Graving 



