Tonkelson v. Malis

The action is, goods sold and delivered. There was no writing, part payment, or giving of a thing in earnest, and the defendant, while offering a different version of the transaction from that of the plaintiff, placed his main reliance upon the contention that there was neither acceptance nor receipt to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. I think the learned trial justice was right in charging that the facts, under the plaintiff’s version, satisfied the statute.

Assuming, as we must, the correctness of respondent’s version, the material facts are as follows: The defendant, a Philadelphia merchant,…