The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-01-24
Supreme Court-Clrcult.
Before Hon. Judge Morris.

JAY 23--John H. Dykers, John AIsyne and Charles A.
FERRIS Thomas 7b,cnsend-The plaintiffs proof of
the purchase OF stock by the defendant consists three
several contracts Of purchase Of stock of Of which
the following is copy
NEw YORK, May 2, 1854
500 Shares II, B. CT have purchased OF Dykers,
Alslyne Co., five hundred shares OF the stock Of the
per cent payable and deliverable in sixty (60 days,
buyers option with interest at the rate Of six per csat
per appum. Due. W. s. HDYT.
The other two memoranda in the form and
signed in the manner. Mr.. Hoyt testdes that in
all these transactions he acting agent for the de-
PENDANT and that he informed the plaintiffs before
and at the time Of purchase All this evidence due
time objected to by the defendant Defendant moves
for nonsuit-that plaintiffs complaint DO dismissed.
BY r. page 1885, 3, every contract for the sale
Of fifty dollars more, shall be void uncss-Sec l.
note or memorandum Of such contract be made In
thereby See 8. Every instrument required By any of
the provisions Of this title TO be subscribed by party
may be subscribed by the lawful agent Of such party
The question for TO decide is whether these contracts
of purchase presented in this ''such q memo
randum In writing Of q contract" as required
liable The written contracts ON their face,
individual contracts Of Mr.. w. g. Hoyt,
and are so expressly specified They are the very writ
ten contracts which the statute Of frauds 10
make hr Hoyt responsible, had the purchases been
made by him for his individual account. The written
contracts which the statute Of frauds require 20 make
the defendant liable written contracts Of the de-
PENDANT the written individual contracts Of the per-
who may be agent Of his. An agent, under the
eighth section can only bind his principal by signing
the nsrumentthe contract required TO BE- subscribed
by his principal and such contract must ke the
Of the principal The fourth section Of this statute
shows what memorandum In writing the legislature
deemed necessary for agent TO make for the purpose
Of blncng his prncpal"Sec. 4. Whenever goods shall
be sold at public auction, and the auctoneer shall at
the time Of sale, enter In salesbook udum
specify the nature and price Of the property sold the
terms Of the SALE the Of purchaser and the
Of the person whose account the sale Is made such
memorandum shall be deemed Of the contract OF
sale within the meaning Of the last section" This
specifies not only the terms, but the names
Of the contracting parties. 1t Is the
tract OF the parties, signed by their agent,
no, the individual contract Of person who happens
TO be mutual agent Of the parties. There can be
no question that these memoranda In writing upon
their face not sufficient 10 make the defendant liz
The plaintiffs counsel seeks by parol testimony supply
their deectto show BY paro that although upon Their
face they individual contracts Of Mr. Hoyt yet they
the contracts OF the defendant The OBJ
Jeotion to this parol testimony Ia the statute ITSELF
which asserts the conruct must be in wrtngnot part
in writing and part In pafo BY permitting parol test
mony TO make or substitute party To written
tract all the evils would be restored that the statute
intended 20 eradieate-and think in their worst
features. Plaintiffs complaint dismissed, with costs