had entered into a parol agreement for a lease, and a draft was prepared and sent to him on which he endorsed and signed a memorandum requesting the plaintiff to relet the premises, and it was held that this was a sufficient signature. The ground of decision was that the defendant admitted that he had entered into the agreement. CHAP. VI. sufficient It is not enough to identify, there must be a signing, What is a that is to say, either an actual signature of the name, or signature. something intended by the writer to be equivalent to a signature, such as a mark by a marksman. Thus a letter from a mother to her son, beginning "My dear Robert," and concluding "your affectionate mother," was held not signed so as to constitute a binding contract within the intention of the statute. (a) It witness. appears that a person, whether principal or agent, Signature as signing an agreement as witness, with knowledge of its contents, and with the intention of authenticating the instrument, will be bound. (b) In one case (c) Lord Eldon said that "where a party principal, or person to be bound, signs as what he cannot be, a witness, he cannot be understood to sign otherwise than as principal." Where, however, an auctioneer's clerk, whose signature if on behalf of the vendor would have bound him, attested the purchaser's signature to a written memorandum of the contract, it was held that this was not sufficient to bind the vendor. And Lord Denman, C.J., said that "he thought the above remark of Lord Eldon open to much observation; that no such decision had (a) Selby v. Selby, 3 Mer. 2; and see Skelton v. Cole, 1 De G. & J. 587. (b) Welford v. Beazley, 3 Atk. 504; (c) Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 251. CHAP. VI. By partner. Signature may be in pencil, been actually made; and that, if it had, he should pause, unless he found it sanctioned by the very highest authority, before he held that a party attesting was bound by the instrument. (a) One of a partnership firm may bind the other partners on a purchase of goods required by the firm in the course of their business by signing the usual style of the firm. (b) The signature may be written in pencil instead of ink, for signature in pencil is not necessarily deliberative, (c) or by a stamp, or it may be made by means of a stamp. The ordinary mode of affixing a signature to a document is not by the hand alone, but by the hand coupled with some instrument, such as a pen or a pencil, and there is no distinction between using a pen or a pencil and using a stamp, where the impression is put upon the paper by the proper hand of the party signing. In each case it is the personal act of the party, and to all intents and purposes a signing of the document by him. (d) So also the signaor be printed. ture may be printed, if recognized by the party to be (a) Gosbell v. Archer, 2 A. & E. 500; 4 N. & M. 485; and see Doe v. Burdett, 9 A. & E. 971; S. C. 6 M. & Gr. 386; and Bult v. Morell 12 A. & E. 745. Upon these cases Lord St. Leonards remarks, Sugd. V. & P. 13th ed. 116, that "there appears to be no foundation for the doubt thus thrown upon the dictum of Lord Eldon, for he confines his observation to the case where the person to be bound signs as, what he cannot be, a witness, and must, therefore, be considered to sign in his proper character. By the rule, as expressed by Lord Eldon, the person signing is assumed to be really the contracting party. In the case put by way of objection, there would be no real contract by the party to sign." (b) Norton v. Seymour, 3 C. B. 792. (c) Geary v. Physic, 5 B. & C. 234; 7 D. & R. 653; Lucas v. James, 7 Hare, 410. (d) Bennett v. Brumfitt, L. R. 3 C. P. 28, per Bovill, C. J. charged, and appropriated by him to the particular contract. Thus in Saunderson v. Jackson, (a) it was held that a bill of parcels in which the vendor's name was printed, delivered to the vendee at the time of order given for the future delivery of goods, was a sufficient memorandum of the contract, within the statute; and at all events, that a subsequent letter written and signed by the vendor referring to the order, might be connected with the bill of parcels so as to take the case out of the statute. CHAP. VI. initials It is not necessary that the name of the party to be Mark or charged should be actually written by him, but it is sufficient. sufficient if the memorandum is authenticated by him by means of a mark, or, it would appear, by his initials, though this does not seem to have been formally decided. In Hubert v. Moreau, (b) Best, C.J., said: "Undoubtedly a signing by a mark would satisfy the meaning of the statute; but here there is nothing intended to denote a signature."(c) Where an agent, being unable to write, held the top of the pen while another person wrote his name to the agreement, it was held that there was a sufficient signature. (d) The signature to instructions for a telegram is suffi- Instructions for telegram. cient to bind the person signing, so as to render him (a) 2 B. & P. 238; and see Schneider v. Norris, 2 M. & Sel. 286. (b) 12 Moo. 216; 2 C. & P. 528. (c) And as to initials, see Phillimore v. Barry, 1 Camp. 513; Hyde v. Johnson, 2 Bing. (N. C.) 776; Jacob v. Kirk, 2 Moo. & Rob. 221; Sweet v. Lee, (d) Helshaw v. Langley, 11 L. CHAP. VI. Place of signature immaterial. Signature at beginning. liable on a contract accepted by the telegram, whether as principal or agent. (a) It does not matter in what part of the instrument the signature of the party to be charged is found, whether on one side of the paper or the other; provided it is inserted in such a manner as to have the effect of authenticating the instrument the requisition of the act with respect to signature is complied with. (b) Thus an agreement beginning "I A. B.," though not further signed, is good within the statute. (c) So where the traveller of the plaintiffs agreed with the defendant for the sale to him by sample of goods, and the defendant wrote in his own book, which he kept, a memorandum of the transaction, commencing "Sold John Dodgson,' and this memorandum was signed by the traveller on behalf of the plaintiffs, it was held that there was a sufficient memorandum of the contract. "The cases have decided," said Lord Abinger, C.B., " that, although the signature be in the beginning or middle of the instrument, it is as binding as if at the foot of it; the question being always open to the jury whether the party, not having signed it regularly at the foot, meant to be bound by it as it stood, or whether it was left so unsigned because he refused to complete it. But when it is ascertained that he meant to be bound by it as a complete contract, the statute is satisfied, there being a note in writing showing the terms of the contract, and re (a) Godwin v. Francis, L. R. 5 C. P. 295; McBlain v. Cross, 25 L. T. (N. S.) 804. (b) Ogilvie v. Foljambe, 3 Mer. 53; Coldham v. Showler, 3 C. B. 312; Hammersley v. De Biel, 12 C. & F. 63. (c) Knight v. Crockford, 1 Esp. 190; Taylor v. Dobbins, 1 Str. 399; Morison v. Turnour, 18 Ves. 183. cognized by him. I think in this case the requisitions of the statute are fully complied with. The written memorandum contains all the terms of the contract; it is in the defendant's own handwriting, containing his name, and it is signed by the plaintiffs through their agent."(a) A purchaser's signature upon particular goods, denoting that he has purchased them, (b) or opposite lots in a printed catalogue, (c) or in an order book, the goods being specified in the book, and the signature being made for the purpose of authorizing the vendor to send the goods, (d) may be sufficient to bind him. So also the signature is enough if the agreement is in Signature in third person. the third person and written by the person to be charged himself, though there is no other signature. (e) Where articles of agreement containing the terms of a contract purporting to be made between certain persons whose names were stated at the commencement of the articles, and who were described as the contracting parties, concluded "as witness our hands," without being followed by any name or signature, it was held that they were not sufficiently signed within the statute.(f) (a) Johnson v. Dodgson, 2 M. & W. 653; see also Saunderson v. Jackson, 2 B. & P. 238; Schneider v. Norris, 2 M. & Sel. 286; Holmes v. Mackrell, 3 C. B. (N. S.) 789; Durrell v. Evans, 1 H. & C. 174. (b) Hodgson v. Le Bret, 1 Camp. 233. (c) Phillimore v. Barry, 1 Camp. 513; and see Emmerson v. Heelis, 2 Taunt. 38. (d) Sarl v. Bourdillon, 1 C. B. (N. S.) 195; 26 L. J. C. P. 78; Newell v. Radford, L. R. 3 C. P. 52. (e) Western v. Russell, 3 V. & B. 187; Propert v. Parker, 1 R. & M. 625; Bleakley v. Smith, 11 Sim. 150; Lobb v. Stanley, 5 Q. B. 574. (f) Hubert v. Treherne, 3 M. & Gr. 743; S. C. nom. Hubert v. Turner, 4 Sc. (N. R.) 486. |