Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1912-06-20
.rpREME CoURT 1HOolgsIDERs
CONTRACT DECls1oNs
THE LAW Involved N CASES
uouser VS.. Hobart Dros., the Suit in L.
sue, but Several Others Hang
on Results.

AGAINST Hobart Brothers. This was an
action involving barley contract, ap-
nealed from Lewis county as test
ease and was submitted at the last
term of the supreme court at Lewiston.
The defendants had contracted in
August to sell their barley to Houser
on October deliveries. Last year the
price of barley rose continuously from
August to November, and at the time
of delivery the price had advanced con-
siderably above the August prices. The
defendants refused to perform their
contract and were sued for damages.
In defense they pleaded the statute of
frauds, which requires certain con-
tracts to be evidenced by writing.
The pleadings in the case state that
when the sale was made pencil men,
orandum of the contract was drawn re-
citing the agreement Of defendants to
sell and deliver the grain and the
agreement Of Houser to purchase and
nav for it; that the memorandum was
made in duplicate and one copy was
kept by each Of the parties; and that
the agreement was signed by Hobart
Brothers, but was not signed by Hous
er, but that Houser gave written ac-
ceptance of the contract.
A copy Of the memorandum signed
by Hobart Brothers 10 set out in the
pleadings, and defendants made great
number Of objections to the sufficiency
Of this writing. One Of the objections
made by defendants was that the men,
orandum was not signed by Houser,
though he had confirmed it by his let
tiers.
The statute Of frauds provides that
agreements to sell personal property
Of more than $500 value shall not be
enforceable unless the contract can be
proved by some written admission or
memorandum, signed by "the party to
be charged"
Idaho took the statute from Califor-
MIA, which in turn took it from New
York, which in the colonial days took
it from England, where it was adopted
in 1873.
On the original hearing in the SUI
preme court, Houser's counsel did not
brief or argue in detail the question Of
whether the memorandum had to be
signed by both parties in order to make
the contract proveable, the briefs being
mainly directed to the discussion of
other points in the case
The court was accordingly left with
out complete presentation of the au-
thorities on this point, and basing their
decision on the cases called to their at
tention, they decided that contract
Of this kind could not be proved unless
the written memorandum was signed by
both the buyer and seller,
A petition for rehearing was then
filed in which the attention of the
court was called to the fact that the
statute does not require the signature
of both parties, but only of the party
to be charged" 1t was pointed out
that the English courts had construed
the party to be charged as meaning the
defendant in the suit, and that the law
had been held to mean merely that a
man could not be sued upon contract
Of this kind unless he had admitted the
contract in writing over his sigma
ture. 1t was also shown that in New
York in 1904 the same identical point
had come before Chancellor Kent, and
In decision reviewing all the decided
cases, he had held that the law was too
we'll settled to admit any question but
that the signature Of defendant was
sufficient. The rehearing petition also
stated that in 1S45 the New York code
commission had recommended that the
legislature change the law SO as to re-
qulre the signature Of both parties, but
that the legislature had declined to do
50, apparently feeling that one who
admitted the contract over his sigma
ture ought to be compelled to perform
1t. The petition then set out the decis-
ions on this point in all the American
states in alphabetical order, and indi-
Gated that while there had been some
conflict and confusion in the earlier
cases previously called to the court e
attention, the courts Of Ill the states
mad finally settled unanimously upon
Inc rule that the law does not require
the signature Of both parties, but only
OF the party to be charged.
The petition for rehearing was pre-
sented immediately after the original
decision Of the court was announced
oy Attorney e. A. Cox for the plain
tlff Houser, and after careful consid
Grafton of the authorities the court has
concluded that ifa original opinion