Editing Contracts/Formal requisites

{{:Contracts/TOC}}{{Breadcrumb|parent_page=Contracts|alias={{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
== Seal ==
A contract under seal is a contract to which the seal of the party or parties executing it is affixed, and which derives its validity from its form alone, and not from the fact of agreement<ref>See [[Contracts/Acceptance#Acceptance by Assent|Acceptance § Acceptance by Assent]].</ref> to or from consideration<ref>See [[Contracts/Consideration#Contracts under seal|Consideration § Contracts under seal]]</ref> A contract under seal is necessary at common law where the promise is without consideration, and in many jurisdictions conveyances of land and certain other contracts are required by statute to be under seal. Contracts under seal are treated under other titles. Contracts under seal are also known as specialties.<ref>See Doyle v. West, 60 Oh. St. 438, 447, 54 NE 469.</ref>

== Writing ==
===Necessity for===
The only formal contract in common law was the contract under seal, all others being parol contracts, depending for their validity on consideration, whether they are by word of mouth or in writing.<ref>Valdes Hotel Co. v. Ferrell, 17 Ga. A. 93, 86 SE 33 3 ; Quigly v. Muse, 15 La. Ann. 197; Stabler v. Cowman. 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 284; Ludwig v. Bungart, 26 Misc. 247. 56 NYS 51 [rev on other grounds 48 App. Dlv. 613. 63 NYS 91].<br /><br />
See [[Contracts/Consideration|Consideration]].</ref> The only contracts which, in the absence of a statute, are required to be in writing, outside of those requiring a seal, are bills of exchange and promissory notes; other contracts may be verbal.<ref>Del.-Jones v. Tucker, 26 Del. 422. 84 A 1012.<br /><br />
Ky.-John King Co. v. Louisville. etc . , R. Co., 131 Ky. 46, 1 1 4 SW 308 [reb den 116 SW 1201].<br /><br />
Mich.-Mall, etc., Co. v. Wood, 140 Mich. 505, 1 03 NW 864.<br /><br />
N. Y.-Sackett v. Sackett, 14 NYS 251.<br /><br />
Oh.-Merrlck y. Di tzler, 91 Oh. St. 256. 110 NE 493.</ref> The parties instead of reducing an agreement to writing may adopt the terms of an existing written contract.<ref>American Colortype Co. v. Continental Colortype Co., 188 U. S. 104. 23 SCt 265. 47 L. ed. 404; Butler v. Tifton, etc., R. Co., 121 Ga. 817, 49 SE 763; International Power Co. v. Hardy, 118 Ga. 512, 46 SE 311; Florida, etc., R. Co. v. Varnedoe, 81 Ga. 175. 7 SE 129; Valdes Hotel Co. v. Ferrell, 17 Ga. A. 93. 86 SE 333; Walton-Wilson-Rodes Co. v. McKitrick, 141 Ky. 415, 132 SW 1046.<br /><br />
'''Incorporation of terms by reference''' see [[Contracts/Construction and Operation#Papers Annexed or Referred to|Construction and Operation § Papers Annexed or Referred to]].</ref> It is within the power of the legislature to require contracts to be in writing,<ref>Wyatt v. Wanamaker, 126 App. Div. G56, 111 NYS 90 [aff 58.Misc. 429, 110 NYS 900]; Wyatt v. McCreery, 126 App. Dlv. 650, 111 NY.S 86.<br /><br /> '''[a] Philippines.'''-When the essential requisites for the existence of a contract are present, the contract is binding on the parties whatever may be the amount involved, and, although required to be in writing by Civ. Code art. 1280, plaintiff can maintain an action on the verbal agreement without first bringing an action under art. 1279 to compel the execution of a written instrument. See Thunga Chui v. Que Bentec, 2 Philippine 561.<br /><br />
'''[b] Porto Rico.'''-
# Under the provisions of the former civil code contracts involving more than a certain amount were required to be in exwriting. Civico v. Rodriguez, 4 Porto Rico 296.
# This provision did not affect the validity of contracts between the parties. Bigelow v. Porto Rico Planters' Co., 7 Porto Rico Fed. 463.</ref> and the parties cannot agree that contracts which the law requires to be in writing shall be valid although in parol.<ref>Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Avant, 132 Ky. 106, 116 SW 274.</ref> Where statutory power is given to certain persons to make contracts, this does not require that the contract shall necessarily be in writing to bind them.<ref>Austin v. Foster, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 341; Central Lunatic Asylum v. Flanagan, 80 Va. 110.</ref>

===Where Writing Essential Outside of Statutes===
An agreement may he good by word of
mouth, and yet if it is the intention of the parties
that it shall not be binding until put in writing,
there can be no enforceable. agreement until that
is done, for even a written memorandum of a contract
to be subsequently drawn up and signed is
not an enforceable agreement.61 And the parties
may contract between themselves that no agree
ment in regard to future transactions between them
shall be binding on them unless the agreement is
made in writing.0 It must fllso be remembered that
there is a general rule of .etidence, of far-reaching
importance, that evidence of an oral agreement is
not admi11sible to contradict or to add to the terms
of a written contract.•

===Form of Language===
':fu make an enforceable
agreement in 'writing no particular form
of word!J is essential." The intention of the parties is alone looked to, and the use of inapt words or
bad English will not afi'eet the validity of the agreement,
66 although it may affect its construction.64
And even a writing in the form of a receipt may
contain .words showing a contract.61 Yet every
writing, although signed by one or both of the parties,
is not to be construed as an agreement,64 as,
, for example, a mere schedule of prices for work
and materials.68 A contract to repay money may
be implif:d from an acknowledgment that it is due
and owing.80

===Agreement in Several Writings===
An
agreement may be collected from several different
writings which, wh4?n connected, show the parties,
subject matter, terms, and consideration,81 as'in the
ease of contracts entered into by correspondence ;82
but the rule that, where a written contract is in
several parts and all are executed at the same time
it is but one contract, cannot be applied to separate
and distinct papers executed and signed by different parties and imposing different obligations
on the parties executing them." And where a person
sends to another two written instruments purporting
to be counterparts of a proposed eontraet,
but which differ materially, and asks him to a�ept
and return the duplicate, and he signs but one of
the instruments and returns it, this is the eontraet
between them.s. A written agreement of which
there are two copies, one signed by e ach of the parties,
is binding on both to the same exten t as if
there had been only one copy of the agreement and
both had signed it,115 but there is no agreement
where the two copies differ in a material point.•
Where a contract is to be executed· in du plicate, it
becomes effective as soon as one of the copies is
nec uted by both parties.81 Duplicate contracts are
treated as originals, although the parties may han
ehosen to call one "original copy" and the other
"duplicate copy.',.,

===Agreement Partly Written and Partly Oral===
An agreement may be partly in writ
ing and partly by word of mouth ;• such an agreement
i.s io be treated as an oral contract. 70 Further
a contract may be in writing as to one party and
oral as to the other, as where a person makes his
offer in writing and the other party accepts orally
or vice '\'ersa;n su ch a c ontract is to be regarded as
a written contract; 73 and the same is true where an
instrument which purports to set forth the mutual
obligations of a contract is signed by but one party
and i.s aeeepted and ael!ed on by the other.73 But
this principle is not applie'able to the draft of a
proposed contract not signed by either of the
parties.74

== Signing ==
===Necessity for===
Signature is not always essential to the binding force of an agreement.<ref>Henderson v. Henderson, 136 Iowa 564, 114 NW 178.</ref> The object of a signature is to show mutuality<ref>Ramsay Realty Co. v. Ramsay, 135 Iowa 612, 114 NW 168.<br />
'''Mutuality''' see [[Contracts/Consideration#Mutuality|Consideration § Mutuality]]</ref> or assent,<ref>Heyer v. Cunningham Piano Co., 6 Pa Super. 504, 42 WklyNC 14.<br />
'''Effect of signature of contract in which party is not named''' see [[Contracts/Construction and Operation#Parties|Construction and Operation § Parties]]</ref> but these facts may be shown in other ways;<ref>Henderson v. Henderson, 136 Iowa 564, 114 NW 178; Heyer v. Cunningham Piano Co., 6 Pa Super. 504, 42 WklyNC 14.</ref> and unless a contract is required by statute or arbitrary rule to be in writing, it need not be signed, provided it is accepted and acted on.<ref>Parker v. Carter, 91 Ark. 6. 134 AmSR 60. '-llli.-1JI:>aJcKs v. :Mauk, 170 Cal. 122. PL 6a2v2e;n sBolno omv. vW. Hisaez, za1r3d1, 0. 37 P 1037; Reedy v. 1. 245: Luckbart v. Og- 5H47e;l'f eCrnlaarny v. Hoagland, v. Davis, 24 301, 140 P 716 [quot v. Mcintyre, 7 Colo. PerFla. U7 IlL 262, 76 NE 482, 2 LRANS 221, 3 AnnCas 1032 ;_ Harts v. Eme7i, 184 Ill. 660, 66 NE 866 [afr 84 II. A. 317); Sellers v. Greer, 172 Ill. 649, 50 NE 246, 40 LRA 649; Vogel v. Pekoe, 157 Jll. 339, 42 NE 386. 30 LRA 491; Short v. Kieffer, 142 Ill. 266; Rigdon v. Conley, 141 Ill. 666, 30 NE 1060 (al'f 31 Jll. A. 63 0]; Esmay v. Gorton, 18 Ill. 487; Johnson v. Dodge, 17 Ill. 433; Hoyt v. Schillo Motor Sales Co.. 186 Ill. A. 628; McKeage v. Scully- Kostner Coal Co. . 185 Ill. A. 122; Miers v. Fuller Co., 167 Ill. A. 49; Grlefen v. Uubbe.rd, 112 Ill. A. 16; Barlckman v. Cantrall, 91 Ill. A. 230; Raphael v. Hartman, 8 7 Ill. A. 634; Lindeman v. Wagner, 67 Ill. A. 134. Ind.-Burke v. Mead, 159 Ind. 262, 64 NE 880; Indianapolis Natural Gas Co. v. Kobbey, 136 Ind. 357, 36 NE 392; Chicago, etc .. R. Co. v. Derkea. 103 Ind. 6 20 . 3 NE 239; Fairbanks reguv. Meyers, 98 Ind. 93; Street v. Chap- man, 29 Ind. 142 j, Cincinnati, etc .. R. Co. v. Pearce, 2a Ind. 602; Kleth v. Kerr, 17 Ind. 284; Knapp v. Beach, 52 Ind. A. 673, 101 NE 37; High Wheel Auto Parte Co. v. Troy Journal Co., 60 Ind. A. 396, 98 NE H2 i McCauley v. Schatzley, 44 Ind. A. I􀃈!la. 􀃇H􀃆􀀷 ir􀃅􀃄n v. lienderson. 138 Iowa 664 , 114 NW 1 78; Ramsay Realty Co. v. Ramsay, 135 Iowa. 612, 616, 113 NW •88 [cit Cyc]; Musca- tine Water Co. v. Muscatine Lumber Co. , 85 Iowa 112, 62 NW 108, 39 AmSR 284; Dows v. Morse, 62 Iowa 231. 17 NW 496; Bell v. Byerson, 11 AshIowa. 233, 17 AmD 142; Attlx v. Pelan, 5 Iowa 3 36.<br />
'''Kan.'''-Babblt v. Central L. Ins. Co., 93 Kan. &S., 672. 144 P 837 [cit Cyc); Sentney v. Hutchinson Interurban R. Co., 90 Kan. 61 0, 136 P 678; Stivers v. Cherryvale , 88 Kat). 270, 120 P 361; Brownson v. Perr[;,- 71 Kan. 678, 679, 81 P 197 [cit Cyc .<br />
'''Ky.'''--Ogden v. Ogden, 1 SW 65, 8 KyL 416.<br />
'''Mo.'''-Mercantile Trust Co. v. La- Ann. 929, 9 S 905; Smith v. Morse, 20 La. Ann. 220; Lesseps v. Wicks. 12 La. Ann 739; Cusachs v. Dugue. 4 La. A. (Orleans) 132; Bodenheimer v. Mary Planting, etc., Co., 1 La. A. (Orleans) 13.<br />
'''Me.'''-I oung v. Ward, 33 Me. 359. Mass.- Bufflngton v. McNally, 192 Mass. 198, 78 NE. 309; Matton v. Barnes, 112 Mass. 463.<br />
'''Minn.'''-Grlffln v. Bristle, 39 Minn. 456, 40 NW 623; Magoon v. Minnesota Packing Co.. 34 Minn. 434, 28 NW 235. Mo.-Mercantile Trust Co. v. Lamar. 148 Mo. A. 363, 128 SW 20; Sunbury v. Aaron, -136 Mo. A. 222, 118 SW 431; Grafeman Dairy Co. v. St. Louis Dairy Co .. 98 Mo. A. 495, 70 SW 390; American Pub., etc.. Co. v. Walker. 87 Mo. A. 603l Stone v. Pennock. 31 Mo. A. 544; Hernor v. Bagnell. 20 Mo. A. 643.<br />
'''Nebr.'''-Serhant v. Gooch Milling, etc . . Co., 96 Nebr. 764. 148 NW 911. N. J.-Marshall v. Hann, 17 N. J. L. 426; Young v. Paul, 10 N. J. Eq. 401, 64 AmD 456. N. Y.-Knudteen v. Remmel, 141 App. Dlv. 446, 126 NYS 249; Schnurr v. Quinn, 83 App. Dlv. 70, 82 NYS 468; Dutch v. Mead, 36 N. Y. Super. 427; Secor v. Law, 22 N. Y. Super. 163; Darby v. Pettee, 9 N. Y. Super. 139 [atr 69 N. Y. 628 mem]; Durkin v. New York. 49 Misc. 114, 96 NYS 1069; Reynolds v. Welsh. 8 NYSt 404. N. D.-Merritt v. Adams County Land, etc., Co .. 29 N. D. 496, 151 NW 11.<br />
'''Oh.'''-Bacon v. Daniele, 37 Oh. St. 279.<br />
'''Or.'''- Leonard v. Howard, 67 Or. 203. 13 5 P 649. Pa.-Grove v. Hodges. 65 Pa. 604; Flannery v. Dechert, 13 Pa. 606. See P ennsylvania R. Co. ,... Bost, 104 Pa. 26 (holding that, where a railroad company had adopted rules and reguv. lations for minors entering Into Its service for wages, to work In Its shops, on acceptance ot a person under those rules they become bind- lng on both parties, although signed only by the apprentice).<br />
'''Philippine.'''--co-Boo v. Llm-Tian, 3 Philippine 186. c.8a7f."3􀀶�t'�7�􀃃􀀵􀃂e3 lm1f:":!􀃁􀃀· . • 27 s. S. D.-Kiam v. Wolters, 28 S. D. 266. 133 NW 277• Reed v. Coughran. 21 S. D. 267A 111 NW 669; McPherson v. Fargo, 1u S. D. 611, 74 NW 1057, 68 AmSR 723.<br />
'''Tex.'''- Campbell v. McFadin, 71 Tex. 28, 9 SW 138; Benson v. AshIowa. ford, (Civ. A.) 189 SW 1093, 1094 [cit Cyc]; Leonard v. Portier, 3 Tex. A. Clv. Cas. f 382.<br />
'''Vt.'''-Brandon Mfg. Co. v. Morse. 48 Vt. 822; Patchin v. Swift, 21 Vb292. Waeh.-Hunter v. Byron. 92 wash . 489, 169 P 703; Amherst Inv. Co. v . Meacham. 89 Wash. 284. 124 P 882.<br />
'''Wis.'''-McPhee v. McDermott, 77 Wis. 33, 45 NW 808. B. C.-Mills v. Marriott, 17 B. C. 171. 3 DomLR 2 68, 20 WestLR 917.<br />
'''[a] Agreement to lease.'''-A unilateral contract whereby a party agrees to hire certain premises, on acceptance by the owner, becomes binding on both partles. Buffington v. McNally, 192 Mass. 198, 78 NE 309.</ref> However, where the contract contemplates that it shall not be effective until executed by signing, either party may insist on the condition.<ref>Sparks v. Mauk, 170 Cal. 122, 148 P 928.</ref> It is held in numerous cases that, where an instrument has been executed by only a portion of the parties between whom it purports to be made, it is not binding on those who have executed it.<ref>'''U.S.'''-Arnold v. Scharbauer, 116 Fed. 492.<br />
'''Ala.'''-Vastblnder v. Metcalf, 3 Ala. 100.<br />
'''Fla.'''-Hinote v. Brigman, U FIL 689. 33 S 303.<br />
'''Ill.'''--Grlefen v. Hubbard, 112 Ill. A. 16: Keating v. Nelson, a3 Ill. A. 357; Wetenkamp v. Bllllgh, 27 Ill. A. 586.<br />
'''Ind.'''- Lewis v. Crow, 69 Ind. 434; McCauley v. Schatzley, 44 Ind. A. 262, 88 NE 972.<br />
'''Ky.'''-Bowen v. Chenoa-Hignlte Coal Co.. 168 Ky. 688, 692. 182 SW 635 [quot Cyc].<br />
'''La.'''- New Iberia Rice-Milling Co. v. Romera, 106 La. 439, 29 S 878; Fish v. Johnson, 18 La. Ann. 29.<br />
'''Me.'''-Misslsslppl. etc.. SS. Co. v. Swift. 88 Me. 2 48, 29 A 1083, 41 Am SR 6(5.<br />
'''Md.'''-Baltimore Humane Impartial Soc. & Aged Women's, etc., Homes v. Pierce, 1 0 0 Md. 520. 60 A 277. 70 LRA 486.<br />
'''Mass.'''-Jtussell v. Annable. 109 Mass. 72. 12 AmR 866; Howe v. Peabody, 2 Gray 656; Wood v. Wa.shburn, 2 Pick. 24; Bean v. Parker. 17 Mass. 591; Andrews v. Etterldge, 9 Mass. 183.<br />
'''Nebr.'''-Wllcox v., Saunders. ( Nebr. Nev.-Keller v. Blasdel, 1 Nev. 491.<br />
'''N. C.'''-Lutz v. Thompson. 87 N. C. au.<br />
'''Pa.'''-Bruch v. Shafer. 215 Pa. 690, 84 A 616; Br,11ch v. Abater. 45 Pa.. 􀀴J>Bfo. 612; Finney v. Finney, 1 Pea.rs.<br />
'''S.C.'''-McDaniel v. Anderson. 19 S. c. 211.<br />
'''Tex.'''-Benson v. Ashford, (Civ. A.) 189 SW 1093. 1094 [quot Cvc] ; Ayers v. Herring, (Civ. A.) 32 SW 1 0 6 0 .<br />
'''Eng.'''-Coopers v. United Contract Corp., 14 T. L. R. 29.</ref> The cases so holding are usually those in which the parties executing the instrument would have a remedy by way of indemnity or contribution against the other parties named, which remedy is lost by the failure of such other parties to execute the instrument.<ref>Mattoon v. Barnes, 112 Mass. 463.</ref> The reason for holding the instrument void is that it was intended that all the parties should execute it and that each executes it on the implied condition that it is to be executed by the others, and, therefore, that until executed by all, it is inchoate and incomplete and never takes effect as a valid contract,<ref>Mattoon v. Barnes, 112 Mass. 463; Naylor v. Stene, 96 Minn. 67, 104 NW 686; United Nickel Copper Co. v. Dom inion Nickel Copper Co., 11 DomLR 88, 4 OntWN 1132. 24 Ont WR 462 [dism a.pp 14 DomLR 919, 6 OntWN 301].</ref> and this is especially true where the agreement expressly provides, or its manifest intent is, that it is not to be binding until signed.<ref>'''Ala.'''--Graham v. Caperton, 178 Ala. 116. 67 s 741.<br />
'''Cal.'''-Barber v. Burrows. 61 Cal. 404. 473; Tewksbury v. O'Connell. 21 Cal . 60.<br />
'''Ga.'''-Clarke v. McNatt, 132 Ga. 810, 64 SE 795, 2 6 LRANS 6 8 5 .<br />
'''Ill.'''-Wa.ggeman v. Bracken. 6 2 Ill. 468.<br />
'''Ky.'''-Bowen v. Chenoa-Hign lte Coal Co.. 188 Ky. 688, 692, 182 SW 635 [quot Cyc].<br />
'''Me.'''--Goodenow v. Dunn, 21 Me. 88.<br />
'''Md.'''-Howard v. Carpenter. 11 Md. 269. But see Western Maryland R. Co. v. Orendorff, 37 Md. 328, 335 ( where the court says: "It ha.s long been settled that If two parties enter Into an Indenture or agreement Intended to be signed and sealed by both, but In tac t signed and sealed only by one. that It w l l l be the covenant of him who has signed and sealed").<br />
'''Nebr.'''-Serhant v. Gooch M i l l ing, etc . . Co., 96 Nebr. 75(. 148 NW 911.<br />
'''N. J.'''-Emery v. Neighbour, 7 N. J. L. H2. 1 1 AmD 64 1.<br />
'''N.Y.'''-Brooklyn City R. Co. v. Brooklyn Cent. R. Co., 32 Barb. 358.<br />
'''Pa.'''-Bruch v. Shafer, 45 Pa. Super. 612, 6 1 5 [quo t Cyc].<br />
'''S. D.'''-Harris v. Lyons, 30 S. D. 272. 138 NW 295.<br />
'''Tex.'''-Osborne v. Holland, 1 Tex. A. Clv. Cas. I 1:,87.<br />
'''Utah.'''-Woodward v. Edmunds, 20 Utah 118. 57 P 8 4 8 .<br />
'''Ont.'''-Binck v. Townsend. 2 DomLR 826, 3 OntWN 54 1 , 20 OntWR 974.<br />
'''[a] A tripartite agreement''' cannot be established by a paper signed by one party only. Wilcox v. Saunders, 4 Nebr. 569. 88.</ref> Where these reasons do not apply, it is held that a party who signs and delivers an instrument is bound by the obligations therein assumed, although it is not executed by all the parties named in it.<ref>'''Ill.'''-Brelllng v. Hybl, 167 Ill. A. 1 6 5 .<br />
'''Md.'''-Western Maryla.nd R. Co. v. Orendorff. 37 Md. 328.<br />
'''Mass.'''-Mattoon v. Barnes. 112 Mass. 463; Yale v. Wheelock. 109 Ma.ss. 5 0 2 ; Herrick v. John son. 11 Mete. 26; Warring v. Williams. 8 Pick. 3 2 2 ; Adam s y. Bea.n. 12 Mass. 137. 7 AmD 44: Cutter v. Whittemore. 10 Mass. 442.<br />
'''Minn.'''-WIIkes v. Holmes. 128 Minn. 349. 150 NW 1098; Naylor v. Stene, 98 Minn. 57. 104 NW 886.<br />
'''Mo.'''-State v. Regent Laundry Co., 190 SW 951: Mueh lbach v. Missouri, etc .. R. Co .. 1 6 6 Mo. A. 306, 148 SW 453.<br />
'''N. Y.'''-DIIlon v. Anderson. U N. Y. 231.<br />
'''Oh.'''-Kennard House v. Mathlvlet. 19 Oh. Clr. Ct. 749. 10 Oh. Clr. Dec. 5 40.<br />
'''Porto Rico.'''-Matter of Alalna, 8 Porto Rico Fed. 631.<br />
'''Wis.'''-Security Trust, etc., Ins. Co. v. Ellsworth, 129 Wis. 349, 109 NW 125.<br />
{{Quote|The rule appl icable to such cases Is tha.t a. party who signs and de livers an Instrument Is bound by the obligations h e therein assumes alth ollgh It Is not si gned by all the pe.rtles named In It unless I t appears that the parties sltrn l ng mutually Intended that It shoul d be Inchoate and Incomplete and not take effect as a contract until signed by all the pa.rtlea named.}} State v. Regent L&un· dry Oo.. (Mo.) 1 9 0 SW 951. 953.<br />
'''[a] Illustrations.'''-A written contract, ma.de In duplicate, purporting to transfer an automobile from plaln t llf s In consid erat ion of a transfer by defendant to plaintiffs o f certain shares of corporate stock was not signed by one of the plaintiffs. although he was named In the body of the cont ract: but the other plaintiff and defendant signed the duplicates and each retained one. Therea.fter the automobile was delivered to defendant by plai n t i ff who had not signed. It was held, In an action ot replevin, that the mere lack ot the signature of one of the plaintiffs Is not sutnclent proof of' an understanding or agreem en t that the contract Is not to tRke efff'ct u n t i l signed by both plaintiffs. Wi lkes v. Holmes. 128 M i n n . 349 , 150 NW 1098.</ref> Further it is competent for the parties to adopt it as their contract without signing it, provided their intention to do so is
clear.<ref>'''U.S.'''-Girard L. Ins., etc., Co. v. Cooper, 162 U.S. 529, 15 SCt 879, 40 L. ed. 1062.<br />
'''Ala.'''-Cassells' Mill v. Strater Bros. Grain Co., 1 6 6 Ala. 274. 51 S 969.<br />
'''Ill.'''- Hoyt v. Sch i l l o Motor Sales Co.. 185 Ill. A. 828; Welsbach St. Lighting Co. v. Burdick, 185 Ill. A. 62(; McKeage v. Scully-Kastner Coal Co., 185 I l l . A. 122.<br />
'''Kan.'''-Babbl t v. Central L. Ins. Co., 93 Kan. 564, 1H P 837; Edwards v. Glldemelster. 6 1 Kan. 141. 59 P 259.<br />
'''Ky.'''-Bowen v. Chenoa-Hignlte Coal Co.. 1 6 8 Ky. 588, 592, 182 SW 636 [quot Cyc].<br />
'''La.'''-Bodenhelmer v. Mary Plant lng, etc., Co., 1 La. A . (Orleans) 121. 231.<br />
'''N.Y.'''-Dillon v. Anderson. 41 N.<br />
'''Philippine.'''-Oilveras v. Pozon. Phi l ippine 831.<br /><br />
See Landers v. Foster, 34 Wash. 674, 76 p 274.</ref>

===Mode of Signing===
It is not necessary that the signature of a party to a contract should appear at the end thereof. If his name is written by him in any part of the contract, or at the top, or at the right or the left hand, with intention to sign or for the purpose of authenticating the instrument, it is sufficient to bind him<ref>Ark.- Henry v. Allen. 49 Ark.
1 2 2 . 4 sw 201.<br />
Cal.- Eldridge v. Mowry, %4 Cal. A. 183, 1 4 0 P 978.<br />
Ili.-McConnell v. Brillhart. 17 Ill. 36(, 85 AmD 661.<<br />br />
Ind.-Dickeon v. Conde, 148 Ind. 279, 48 NE 998.
Iowa.-Bonewe l l v. Jacobson. UO Iowa 1 7 0. 1 0 6 NW 814, 5 LR.ANS 436.<br />
Mo.-Donnell Mfg. Co. v. Re􀀳 76 Mo. A. 420.<br />
N. Y.-Perklns v. Goodman. %1 Barb. 218.<br />
Pa.-Stelnlnger v. Hoch, U Pa. 211. 80 AmD 621.<br />
Tenn.-Noe v. Hodcea. ll Humpbr.
112.<br />
Tex.-Cioee v. JudsonL 34 Tex. 285;
Prince v. Thompson. ll1 Tex. 480;
Ful shear v. Randon, 18 Tex.. 276, 10 AmD 281.<br />
Eng.-Jobnson v. Dodgson. 2 K. A
W. 853, 150 Reprint 918. "It he writes hie name In any part of the agreement. lt may 􀝀
taken as his signature. provided It was there written tor the purpose of giving authentlelty to the instrument, and thus operating as a signature." Fulshear v. Randon, 11 Tex. 275, 277, 70 AmD 2 8 1</ref> unless subscription is required by law.<ref>Eldridge v. Mowry, 24 Cal. A. 1813, 140 P 978.</ref> Manifestly, however, the mere fact that one's name appears in the body of a written document cannot, standing alone, make him a party to it, where he has not signed it.<ref>Thomas v. Caldwell, 50 Ill. 138; Lombard v. Buillet, 11 Mart. (La.) 453.</ref> One may sign with initials or mark, etc.,<ref>Finnegan v. Lu cy. 157 Mass. 439, 32 NE 668; Sanborn v. Flagler. 9 Allen (Mass.) 474; Palmer v.
Stephens, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 41ll; Mer·
chants' Bank v. Spicer, 8 Wend. (!".
Y.) 443; Zimmerman""· Sale. 17 s. C.
L. 78.<br />
"Si gn ing does not nece-rlly mean a written signature, as dlstln·
gu l sh ed from a signature by mark. by print. bf stamp, or by the band ot another.' Finnegan v. Lucy, lSi Mass. 4U, 443. 32 NE 666 .<br />
'''[a] A mark''' attached to a signature
is evidence of the intention to
adopt It; but this may be don411 by any other act expressed clearly. Just v. Wise Tp., 42 Mich. 573. 4 NW '298.</ref> or by only the christian name<ref>Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Caldwell, 98 Ind. 245; Zann v. Haller, 71 Ind. 136; Walker v. Walker, 175 Mass. 849, 66 NE 601.</ref> or the surname.<ref>Hodges v. Nalty, 113 Wis. 567, 89 NW 535.</ref> Indeed, almost any signature may be adopted if clearly intended to be taken in authentication of the instrument.<ref>Middleton v. Findla, 26 Cal. 76;Tustin v. Faught, 23 Cal. 237; Omo n v. Seavey. 22 Cal. 496; Shank v. Butsch, 28 Ind. 19; Brown v. Butchers, etc., Bank, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 441, 41 A m D 755; Selby v. Selby, 3 Meriv. 2. 36 Reprint 1.</ref> Thus the validity of the contract is not affected by one's signing it with the English translation of his French name.<ref>Augur v. Couture, 68 Me. 427.</ref>

====Contract in several writings====
Where the contract is evidenced by several writings, it is sufficient that the parties sign one of such writings which defiDitely refers to the others;<ref>Bell v. Campbell, (Tex. Clv. A.l JU SW 953.<br />
'''[a] Specifications.'''-Where the parties have signed a written agreement which refers to specifications the specifications need not be signed. Moore v. U.S., 1 Ct. Cl. 90; White v. McLaren, 151 Mass. 653, 24 NE 911.<br />
'''[b] Where a bond conditioned on the performance of a contract''' refers to the contract as thereto attached, an execution fo the bond with the contract attached thereto is an execution of the contract also. Busch v. Hart, 62 Ark. 330, 35 SW 534; Bell v. Campbell, (Tex. Civ. A.) 143 SW 953.</ref> and where the stipulitions of the parties are contained in separate instruments, it is not n ecessary for both parties to sign each of the instruments.<ref>Lee v. Cozier, 40 Miss. 477 (holding that, where on signs a note for the purchase money and the other an agreement to convey the property when the money is paid, both parties need not sign each instrument).</ref> Where the signature is by mark, the fact that one directed by the party to write his name writes it erroneously will not vitiate the contract.<ref>Bachinsky v. Federal Coal, etc. Co. (W. Va.) 90 SE 227.</ref>

====Signature of subscribing witness====
By statute the signatures of subscribing witnesses may be required to be contemporaneous with the execution of the instrument, and with the knowledge and consent of the party executing it.<ref>Carson v. Woods, (Mo.) 177 SW 623.</ref>

=== Signing by Procuration or Adoption ===
One may be bound by a n agreement to which his signature is affixed by procuration, adoption, or ratification, as well as though it bad been written by his own hand. Where one signs another's name for him in his presence and by his direction, it is as much the act of the person whose name is signed as though he wrote the signature himself. Any defect in the method of executing a written instrument evidencing a contract may, it seems, be cured by ratification. Where the name of a person is affixed to the contract by another person without authority, the other party having knowledge of the lack of authority, and the signature is not adopted by the person whose name is affixed, neither he nor the person affixing his signature is bound.

== Delivery ==
Of the execution of a contract in writing delivery is odlinarily an essential element; and a delivery on condition is not a complete delivery until the condition is fulfilled. But where a party bas received the entire consideration for a contract, it becomes obligatory on him through his signing it, although there is no formal delivery to the other party; and a delivery is not necessary when the parties have entered into mutual engagements with the understanding that they are to be immediately effective and have caused such engagements to be reduced to writing and witnessed as evidence thereof. So, a writing not delivered may be evidence of the actual terms of an agreement between the parties.

== Date ==
A written agreement is valid, although undated. So, as between the parties, it is usually immaterial that the contract is not executed on the day of its date; and it is competent for the parties to agree that the contract shall take effect as of a date earlier than that on which it is executed.

== Leaving Blanks in Writing ==
A writing is incomplete as an agreement where blanks as to essential matters are left in it, unless they can be supplied from other parts of the writing itself. But one signing a paper and leaving blanks in it is ordinarily presumed to give authority to the holder to fill the blanks in accordance with the general character of the instrument.