{
  "id": 8721701,
  "name": "Fordyce v. Seaver",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fordyce v. Seaver",
  "decision_date": "1905",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "395",
  "last_page": "397",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 Ark. 395"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "57 Ark. 257",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1324618
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/57/0257-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Ark. 307",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N. Y. 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        2029534
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/24/0057-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 How. Pr. 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "How. Pr.",
      "case_ids": [
        4457310
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/how-pr/38/0444-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Cush. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cush.",
      "case_ids": [
        1967592
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/61/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Hill, 72",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hill,",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Wis. 615",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N. Y. 229",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        6097438
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/5/0219-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N. Y. 587",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        494179
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/13/0587-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Paige, Ch. 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Paige Ch.",
      "case_ids": [
        482448
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/paige-ch/10/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 G. & J. 518",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "G. & J.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Fed. 338",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "case_ids": [
        3801488
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f/59/0338-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Am. Rep. 775",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "Am. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Wis. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "case_ids": [
        8705201
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis/53/0298-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 351,
    "char_count": 4861,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.715,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.1075229679524e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4678087409729293
    },
    "sha256": "c9b4fe06bad218c78b715536bffd5198ee5835bccf8cf033dd478ad3cffeccfc",
    "simhash": "1:ba5a0ace0e249a8d",
    "word_count": 888
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:33:00.876147+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Aktonio B. Grace, Judge."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Fordyce v. Seaver."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hiuu, C J.\nThis action was brought in Jefferson Circuit Court by the appellees against the appellants \u2014 a partnership \u2014 to recover damages for an alleged breach \u00f3f a contract to sell 173 bales of cotton at an agreed price. Judgment went for the plain- \u2019 tiffs in the circuit court, and the defendants became appellants here. Several questions have been presented, and considered, but only one is undetermined by previous decisions of this court; and as it is chiefly relied upon, the other questions will not be discussed.\nThe contract relied upon was signed by an agent whose authority w;as proved by parol, and the question is whether such signing' answers the demand of the Statute of Frauds.\nThe statute in question, so far as applicable, reads: \u201cNo contract for the sale of goods, wares and merchandise, for the price of $30 and upwards, shall be binding on the parties unless * * * there be some note or memorandum, signed by the party to be charged.\u201d Kirby\u2019s Dig. \u00a7 3656.\nThe original statute \u201cFor the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries\u201d was 29 Car. II, cap. 3, and the prototype of section 3656, Kirby\u2019s Digest, was the 17th section of it. It provided that the writing \u201cbe fnade and signed by the parties to be charged by such contract or their agents thereunto lawfully authorized.\u201d This act was amended by the Lord Tenterden act, 9 George IV. cap. 14, in which the words \u201cagents thereunto lawfully authorized\u201d'do not occur. The English courts have held that the Lord Tenterden act, wherein it was amendatory of the original act, changed the rule, and rendered signing\u2019 by the party himself essential.. Hyde v. Johnson, 3 Scott, 289; Clark v. Alexander, 8 Scott, N. P. 147. Most of the American States have adopted all or parts of these statutes, and they generally provide expressly for the writing to be signed by the party or his agent, while some, like Arkansas, have combined into compact form the terms of the original act and the Lord Tenterden act. The reasoning of .the English courts that the Lord Tenter den amendment changed the rule do not apply to such statutes as these.\nThe Wisconsin act is in this respect exactly like the Arkansas statutes, and the court of that State said: \u201cThe signature of the agent in such case is deemed the signature of the principal, and is sufficient signing to take the case out of the statute.\u201d Weiner v. Whipple, 53 Wis. 298, s. c. 40 Am. Rep. 775. While there is some conflict in the decisions, both English and American, on this question, the rule as stated by the Wisconsin court is \u2019supported by the weight of authority. Browne, Statute of Frauds, \u00a7 \u00a7 364, 365, 370; 1 Reed, Statute of Frauds, \u00a7 \u00a7 368; 372; Wood, Statute of Frauds, 420, 429.; Mechem, Agency, \u00a7 145. The rule is thus stated by Mr. Wood: \u201cExcept in those States where the statute expressly requires that authority to sign a note or memorandum for another shall be conferred by writing, as is the case in some of the States as to the note or memorandum relating to the leasing and sale of lands, the note or memorandum may be signed by an agent of the party to be charged, as well as by the party himself, and such agency as in other cases may be proved by parol, and may be shown by the same class of evidence necessary to establish agency in other cases, that is, by proof of express authority or subsequent ratification.\u201d Wood, Statute of Frauds, \u00a7 425.\nThe court is of opinion that the memorandum required by this section (relating to sales of goods, etc.,) may be signed by a duly authorized agent of the party to be charged.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hiuu, C J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "/. M. &. J. G. Taylor, for appellants.",
      "W. T. Young and M. Danaher, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fordyce v. Seaver.\nStatute of frauds \u2014 memorandum of sale \u2014 signature by agent. \u2014 Under Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 3656, providing that \u201cno contract for the sale of goods, wares and merchandise, for the price of thirty dollars and upwards, shall be binding, * * * unless there be some note or memorandum signed by the party to be charged,\u201d the required note or memorandum may be signed by an agent whose authority may be proved by parol.\nAppeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.\nAktonio B. Grace, Judge.\nAffirmed.\n/. M. &. J. G. Taylor, for appellants.\nThe appellants cannot be liable under the Statute of Frauds. Browne, Fraud, 505; 3 Reed, Stat. Fr. 1115, 249; 28 L. T. R. 232; 59 Fed. 338; 3 G. & J. 518; 2 Camp. 450, 604; 9 Geo. IV, 14; 5 B. & C. 163; 4 M. & P. 811; 7 Bing. 163; 8 Scott, 1-51; 2 Bing. N. C. 779; 2 Scott, 289.\nW. T. Young and M. Danaher, for appellees.\nJ. B. Johnson as agent had authority to bind his principal by signing the contract of sale. 92 LL S. 4x2; 10 Paige, Ch. 386; 13 N. Y. 587; 1 Seld. 197; 5 N. Y. 229; Benj. Sales, 236; 30 Wis. 615; 3 Hill, 72; 7 Cush. 371; 1 Reed, St. Fr. \u00a7 381; 73 N. Y. 6x3; 1 Reed, St. Fr. 368, 372; 38 How. Pr. 444; 24 N. Y. 57; 9 Plun, hi ; Wood, St. Fr. \u00a7 425. The measure of damages was correctly stated. 2 Ark. 307; 57 Ark. 257."
  },
  "file_name": "0395-01",
  "first_page_order": 416,
  "last_page_order": 418
}
