Frauds

STATUTE OF. The name commonly given to St. 29 Car. II. c. 3, entitled, "An Act for the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries"; and to statutes of the various states patterned thereon, and substantially to the same effect. These statutes differ in detail, but generally provide that no action shall be brought on certain classes of contract unless some memorandum thereof be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged.

STATUTE OF. The name commonly given to the statute 29 Car. II. c. 3, entitled “An Act for the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries.” Sections 1-3 provide that all Interest in real estate created by livery of seisin only, or by parol, and not put in writing, and signed by the parties, or their agents authorized by writing, shall have the effect of leases or estates at will only, except leases not exceeding three years. Section 4 provides that no action shall be brought to charge any executor or administrator upon any special promise to answer damages personally, or to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriages of another; or to charge any person upon any agreement made upon condderation of marriage; or upon any contract or sale of lands, or any interest therein or upon any agreement that is not to be performed within one year; unless the agreement or some memorandum or note thereof shall be in writing, signed by the party to be charged, or his agent. Section 17 invalidates the sale of any goods, wares and merchandises for the price of ten pounds sterling or upwards, except the buyer shall accept part of the goods, and actually receive the same, or give something in earnest to bind the bargain or in part of payment, or that some note or memorandum in writing be made and signed by the parties to be charged or their agents. These are the most Important sections; other sections provide additional solemnities in cases of wills; new liabilities imposed in respect of real estate held in trust; the disposition of estates pur outer vie; the entry and effect of judgments and executions. The statute introduced into the law a distinction between xeritten parol and oral parol transactions, and rendered a writing necessary for the valid performance of the matters to which they relate. Those matters are the following: Conveyances, leases, and surrenders of Interests in lands; declarations of trusts of interest in lands; special promises by executors or administrators to answer damages out of their own estate; special promises to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another; agreements made upon consideration of marriage; contracts for the sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them; agreements not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof; contracts for the sale of goods, wares, and merchandise for the price of ten pounds sterling or upwards. All these matters must be, by the statute, put in writing, signed by the party to be charged, or his attorney. As to the acceptance of bills of exchange, immediately cut, is good; In re Benjamin, 140 Fed. 320; Robbins v. Farwell, 193 Pa. 37, 44 Atl. 260; but not if it would require three or four years to work it up; White v. Fitts, 102 Me. 240, 60 Atl. 633, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 318, 120 Am. St. Rep. 483. A note or memorandum of a sale of real estate is sufficient, though the party did not deliver, but retained it; Lowther v. Potter, 197 Fed. 196. Where possession is relied upon as part performance, it must be notorious, exclusive, continuous, and in pursuance of the contract; Baldwin v. Baldwin, 73 Kan. 39, 84 Pac. 568, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 957. The statutory period commences with the date df the agreement and not from the time for commencement of performance; Chase v. Hinkley, 126 Wis. 75, 105 N. W.- 230, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 738, 110 Am. St Rep. 896, 6 Ann. Cas. 328. An oral agreement to pay back at the purchaser’s option the money advanced on a sale of realty and assume the contract is void; Esslinger v. Pascoe, 129 Iowa, 86, 105 N. W. 362, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 147. Where the purchaser orally agrees to pay the owner’s debts as part of the consideration, he cannot Interpose the statute if the contract has been so far performed that he has received the property; Ackley V. Parmenter, 98 N. Y. 425, 50 Am. Rep. 693; Satterfield v. Kindley, 144 N. 0. 455, 57 S. E. 145, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 399, 12 Ann. Cas. 1098. A contemporary promise of one person to pay where the benefit inures to another is a promise to answer for the default of another; when it appears that the credit is not given in the first instance wholly to the person who promises to pay for goods to be delivered to another, then the undertaking is collateral, but if the credit is given direct, then no writing is necessary; Harris V. Frank, 81 Cal. 280, 22 Pac. 856; Hardman V. Bradley, 85 111. 162; Johnson v. Bank, 60 W. Va. 320, 55 S. E. 394, 9 Ann. Cas. 893. As a general rule contracts required to be in writing cannot be modified by parol; Nonamaker v. Amos, 73 Ohio St. 163, 76 N. E. 949; 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 980, 112 Am. St. Rep. 708, 4 Ann. Cas. 179; contra, Marsh v. Bellew, 45 Wis. 38; Stearns v. Hall, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 31. An authorization by one to another to purchase stock for him from a third person is not within the statute; Wiger v. Carr, 131 Wis. 584, 111 N. W. 657, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 650, 11 Ann. Cas. 998. A delivery and acceptance of any part of the goods or chattels subsequent to the oral agreement will take the case out of the statute. A written and signed offer, which is accepted, either in writing or orally, constitutes a sufficient memorandum of contract under the statute of frauds; In re Pettinglll & Go.^ 137 Fed. 143. A parol submission of matters Involving the title to real estate is invalid under th& statute; Hewitt v. R. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 611> As to contracts of indemi Uty to a third person see Indemnity; 42 Am. St. Rep. 186, n.; as to contracts to be performed within a year see Warner v. R. Co., 164 U. S. 418, 17 Sup. Ct 147, 41 L. Ed. 405. In regard to contracts for the sale of goods, wares, and merchandise, the payment of earnest-money, or the acceptance and receipt of part of the goods, etc., dispenses with the wi;ltten memorandum. See Eabnest; Sale. The substance of the statute, as regards the provisions above referred to, has been re-enacted in almost all the states; and in many of them, other points coming within the same general policy, but not embodied in the original English statute, have been made the subject of more recent enactments: as, for instance, the requirement of writing to hold a party upon a representation as to the character, credit, etc., of a third person, which was provided in England by 9 Geo. IV. cap. 14, § 6, coihmonly called Lord Tenterden’s Act For the legislation of the different states see Browne, Statute of Frauds. See Lease; Surety; Performance; Acceptance; Goods, Wares and Merchandise. Throop, Val. of Verb. Agr.; Reed; Wood; Browne, Stat Frauds. For the date and authorship of the statute, see 134 Law Times 511; 26 Harv. L. Rev. 329.

statute of. The statute of 39 Charles II., c. 3, otherwise called the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries, which makes writing necessai-y in many cases of contracts and grants; any statute in one of our states based on the same.

STATUTE OF. This is the common designation of a very celebrated English statute, (29 Car, II. ¢. 3,) passed in 1677, and which has been adopted, in a more or lesa modified form, in nearly all of the United States. Its chief characteristie is the provision that nu suit or action shall be maintained on certain classes of contracts or engagements unless there slali be a note or memorandum thereof in writing signed by the numerous frauds which were believed to be perpetrated, and the perjuries which were believed to be commitied, when such obligations could be enforced upon no other evidence than the mere recollection of witnesses. It is more fully named as the “statute of frauds and perjuries.”

Statute of. The Franc aleu: free, allodial land. privilege granted by the Crown to a pri-; an alien. freeholder. Francus bancus: free bench. Francus plegius: ^frankpledge. a kind of tenure by spiritual serland held by a religious corporation, to successors forever. Tenure by divine specified services were required, and whereas in frankalmoign he could only Frank bank: free bench. Frank Frank fee: 1. The reverse of ancient simple. 2. Lands held free of all ser- 3. Lands held by the lord of a manor in Crown. Frank ferme: an old kind of from knight's service by a new feoffment. privilege of the lord to fold the tenant's manure them. Frank law: the rights citizen; as to be a juror, witness, etc. estate in tail special, given by the donor the donor's female relative, descendible their bodies, free of all services except generation of their descendants. Frankdecennary. Also, the bond or pledge mumembers of a tithing to answer for one or to produce the offending member. for good behavior required of each freethe age of fourteen. Frank tenant: tenement: freehold. woody ground. consanguineus: a brother by the by the mother's side. Frater fratri in haereditate paterna: a brother brother in the paternal inheritance. bastard brother. 29 Car. II. 2, making written mem-

STATUTE OF. The celebrated statute of 29 Charles II. c. 3, passed A. D. 1677, otherwise called the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries; styled by an eminent commentator, "the most comprehensive, salutary and important legislative regulation on record, affecting the security of private rights." 2 Kent's Com. 494, note. It is said to have been the joint production of Sir Matthew Hale, Lord Keeper Guilford, and Sir Leoline Jenkins. The chief object of passing this statute was to prevent the facility to frauds and the temptation to perjury held out by the enforcement of obligations depending for their evidence upon the unassisted memory of witnesses. Hence its leading feature is the requirement of some instrument or note in writing, signed by the parties to be charged, or their authorized agents, to render contracts, in certain specified cases, valid. See a summary of the provisions of this statute in 2 Kent's Commentaries, 494, note. And see Smith on Contracts, 82, et seq.