Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Handbook-Law-Of-Contracts/Signature-By-Agent-Continued.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:10:01+00:00

Document:
62 Higgins v. Senior, 8 Mees. & W. 834; Waring v. Mason. 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 425. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 251-260.
63 Roehl v. Hauinesser, 114 Ind. 311, 15 N. E. 345; Kennedy v. Ehlen, 31 W. Va. 540, 8 S. E. 398; Watson v. Sherman, 84 111. at page 267. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 251-260.
64 Hall v. Wallace, 88 Cal. 434, 26 Pac. 360; Gerhart v. Peck, 42 Mo. App. 644; Castner v. Richardson, 18 Colo. 496, 33 Pac. 163; Kozel v. Dearlove, 144 111. 23. 32 N. E. 542, 36 Am. St. Rep. 416; Detroit, P. & N. Ry. Co. v. Hartz, 147 Mich. 354, 110 N. W. 1089; Thomas v. Rogers, 108 Minn. 132, 121 N. W. 630, 133 Am. St Rep. 421; Adams v. Carlton, 77 Kan. 546, 95 Pac. 390; Ross v. Craven, 84 Neb. 520, 121 N. W. 451; Cobban v. Hecklen, 27 Mont. 245,. 70 Pac. 805. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 251-260.
65 Simpson v. Commonwealth, 89 Ky. 412, 12 S. W. 630. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 251-260.
66 Drury v. Young, 58 Md. 546, 42 Am. Rep. 343; Ames v. Ames, 46 Ind. App. 597, 91 N. E. 509. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 117; Cent. Dig. § 261.
67 Wier v. Batdorf, 24 Neb. 83, 38 N. W. 22; Callanan v. Chapin, 158 Mass.. 113, 32 N. E. 941; Swain v. Burnette, 89 Cal. 564, 26 Pac. 1093; Day v. La-cusse, So Me. 242, 27 Atl. 124. And see Kopp v. Reiter. 146 111. 437, 34 N. E. 942, 22 L. R. A. 273, 37 Am. St. Rep. 156. But see Johnston v. Jones, 85 Ala. 286, 4 South. 748. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 117; Cent. Dig. § 261.
68 Johnston v. Jones, 85 Ala. 286, 4 South. 748; Cannon v. Handley, 72 Cal. 133, 13 Pac. 315; Lewis v. Prather (Ky.) 21 S. W. 538. But. see Ducett v. Wolf, 81 Mich. 311, 45 N. W. 829. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 117; Cent. Dig. § 261.
50-51. Failure to comply with the requirement of the fourth section does not render the contract void, but merely excludes parol proof, and renders it unenforceable.
69 BRITAIN v. ROSSITER, 11 Q. B. Dlv. 123, Throckmorton, Cas. Contracts, 86; Leroux v. Brown, 12 C. B. 801; Townsend v. Hargraves, 118 Mass. 325; Montague v. Garnett, 3 Bush (Ky.) 297; Baker v. Lauterbach, 68 Md. 64, 11 Atl. 703; Crane v. Gough, 4 Md. 316; Newton v. Bronson, 13 N. Y. 587, 67 Am. Dec. 89; Brakefield v. Anderson, 87 Tenn. 206, 10 S. W. 360; Browning v. Parker, 17 R. I. 183, 20 Atl. 835; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Trapp, 4 Ind. App. 69, 30 N. E. 812; Montgomery v. Edwards, 46 Vt 151, 14 Am. Rep. 618; Chicago Dock Co. v. Kinzie, 49 111. 2S9; La Du-King Mfg. Co. v. La Du, 36 Minn. 443, 31 N. W. 938; Bird v. Munroe, 66 Me. 337, 22 Am. Rep. 571. The courts often use the word "void" carelessly, and the fact that they speak of a contract as void cannot always be relied on. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 119, 125; Cent. Dig. §§ US, 266-277.
70 See supra, note 69.
71 Galway v. Shields, 66 Mo. 313, 27 Am. Rep. 351; Coughlin v. Knowles, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 57, 39 Am. Dec. 759; Sims v. Hutchins, 8 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 331, 47 Am. Dec. 90; Shaw v. Shaw, 6 Vt. 69; Hawley v. Moody, 24 Vt. 605. And see Lane v. Shackford, 5 N. H. 130; Richards v. Allen, 17 Me. 296; Bedinger v. Whittamore, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 563; Collier v. Coates, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 473; McKinney v. Harvie, 38 Minn. 18, 35 N. W. 668, 8 Am. St. Rep. 640; Nelson v. Improving Co., 96 Ala. 515, 11 South. 695, 38 Am. St Rep. 116; Butler v. Dinan, 65 Hun, 620, 19 N. Y. Supp. 950. But see Hartwell v. Young, 67 Hun, 472, 22 N. Y. Supp. 486, in which it was held that a person orally employed for a longer period than a year may abandon the contract without fault on his employer's part, and recover for the services rendered; post, p. 119. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 119, 125; Cent. Dig. §§ US, 266-277.
Further illustration of the rule that a contract which does not comply with the statute is not void, but simply unenforceable, is found in the mode in which courts of equity deal with such contracts, to be presently explained.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 116
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 116
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 116
 v. 
 § 116
 v. 
 v. 
 § 117
 § 261
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 117
 § 261
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 117
 § 261
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.