Evarts v. Thorn

—The transaction proved by the plaintiff was not a contract to perform work and labor, but for the sale of certain goods, which the defendant subsequently re-' fused to receive. The price was more than fifty dollars, and no part of the purchase money was paid, nor any por*669tian of the goods ever accepted by the defendant. The •contract was not in writing, and is void under the statute of frauds.

The plaintiff testifies; “I know the defendant and was first introduced to Mm at the time I took this order; I had a conversation with him; I had two sample lots; the defendant looked at them, asked me…