
    William Davis versus Jacob Rowell et al.
    
    A sale of a chattel by auction is within St. 1788, c. 16, $ 2, (copied from '29 Car. 2, c. 3, § 17,) of frauds.
    Assumpsit. The third count in the declaration was for the non-delivery of a certain vessel, bargained and sold by the defendants to the plaintiff. To maintain this count the plaintiff proved that the vessel was, by order of the defend* ants, sold to him, by public auction, for the sum of 870 dollars. It appeared, however, that the conditions of sale were not reduced to writing, and that the auctioneer made no memorandum in writing of the sale. He did not set down the price, nor the name of the purchaser.
    The defendants contended that the sale, or agreement to sell, was void by the statute of frauds, (St. 1788, c. 16, § 2, copied from 29 Car. 2, c. 3, § 17,) and Wilde J., who tried the cause, was of that opinion, and so instructed the jury. If this instruction was wrong, the verdict, which was for the defendants, was to be set aside, and a new trial granted.
    Cummins, for the plaintiff,
    contended that, independently of the statute, the property here vested in the plaintiff; Hinde v. Whitehouse, 7 East, 558 ; Noy’s Max. (8th ed.) 106 ; Payne v. Cave, 3 T. R. 148 ; and that the sale was not within the statute ; Simon v. Metivier, or Motivos, 1 W. Bl. 599 ; S. C. 3 Burr. 1921.
    Moseley, contrà,
    cited the same case of Hinde v. Whitehouse ; Sugd. Vend. (2d ed.) 57; Stansfield v. Johnson, 1 Esp. R. 101 ; Walker v. Constable, 2 Esp. R. 559 ; S. C. 1 Bos. & Pul. 306 ; Buckmaster v. Harrop, 7 Ves. 345 ; Blagden v. Bradbear, 12 Ves. 466 ; Emmerson v. Heelis, 2 Taunt. 38 ; Grant v. Naylor, 4 Cranch, 235.
   Parker C. J.,

in delivering the opinion of the Court, observed, in substance, that if the statute of frauds was applicable to sales by auction, it was evident that none of the requisitions had been complied with in the present case. The question then is, whether the statute is applicable to such sales. The words of the statute are general, but doubts have been entertained by great men in England, whether they were intended to include sales by auction. Other men, however, equally great, have questioned the reasonableness of those doubts. So that, so far as it regards authority, we are at liberty to decide according to our own views of the statute. And we are of opinion that it does apply to sales by auction. The reason given by Lord Mansfield, that the solemnity of such sales precludes the danger of perjury, is not satisfactory. On the contrary, we should think there would be more danger of mistake and perjury where there are so many witnesses, than where there is only one or two.

Judgment according to the verdict. 
      
      
        Kenworthy v. Schofield, 2 Barn. & Cressw. 945. The auctioneer in the sale of lands or chattels is the agent of both parties, and his entry of the name of the purchaser on his book or memorandum containing the particulars of the contract, is a sufficient signing within the statute of frauds. Cleaves v. Foss, 4 Greenl. 1; M'Comb v. Wright, 4 Johns. Ch. R. 659; Alna v. Plummer, 4 Greenl. 258; Jenkins v. Hogg, 2 Const. R. 821.
     