
    GENERAL COURT,
    OCTOBER TERM, 1799.
    Newman vs. Morris.
    Atueat. from diaries county court. It was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellant, and the declaration had a count for sundry articles, &c. and another count for a quantity of cheese sold and delivered, with a quantum velzbat. The general issue was pleaded.
    The defendant in the court below, ("the present appellee,) at the trial, moved the court to direct the jury, that if they should be of opinion that the defendant contracted with the plaintiff for the purchase of 400 lbs. of cheese, at the price of a quarter of a dollar per pound, the cheese to he delivered and paid for thereafter, and that the plaintiff then had the cheese in his possession, about two miles from Port Tobacco, where the contract was made, and where the cheese was to be delivered, that the defendant is not hound by the said contract, unless he the defendant accepted part of the said cheese, and actually received the same, or gave something in earnest to bind tha bargain, or in pari of the payment; or some note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain was made and signed by the said parties, or their agents lawfully authorised. The plaintiff objected, and contended that the said contract was an executory contract, and not within the meaning or spirit of the statute nifrauds and perjuries, passed in the 23th year of Charles the second, entitled, >‘An act for prevention of fraud® and perjuries;” and that the same wms valid and binding inlaw, Rutihe county court [/Stone, Ch. J,] was-of adiffereiit opinion, and gave the directions to the jury as for. The plaintiff excepted, and, the verdict be-j„g for t|ie defendant, the plaintiff prosecuted this appeal.
    
      T. Buchanan, for the appellant.
    
      Kilty and W. Dorsey, for the appellee,
    who cited 2 II Blk. llep. “A. and B. enter into a verbal agreement for the sale of goods to be delivered to A. at a future period; there is neither earnest paid, a note or memorandum in writing signed, nor any part of the goods delivered; this contract is void, being within the statute of frauds, though it is executory, and though it has been admitted by B. in his answer to a bill filed in chancery by A.”
    
   The Generar Court affirmed the judgment of the County Court.  