delivered the opinion of the Court. Several points reserved at the trial of this cause, are now waived, and the motion made by the defendant for a new trial, is placed on two grounds.
*12First, that under the circumstances, parol evidence was not admissible, because the contract of the parties was reduced to writing, and that such writing was the best evidence. But the Court are of opinion, that the objection is not sustained by the fact. No contract in writing was made by the defendant with the plaintiff, to sell those shares. After the negotiation had resulted in an agreement, the agent of the plaintiff, in the name of his firm, gave the defendant a memorandum in writing, undertaking to pay the money, on the performance of the defendant’s agreement to transfer the shares. But it was not signed by the defendant, nor by any person for him, nor did it purport to express his agreement. The Court are therefore of opinion, that the defendant’s agreement not being reduced to writing, the parol evidence was rightly admitted.
But by far the most important question in the case, arises on the objection, that the case is within the statute of frauds. This statute, which is copied precisely from the English statute, is as follows. “No contract for the sale of goods, wares or merchandise for the price of ten pounds ($33-33) or more, shall be allowed to be good, except the purchaser shall accept part of the goods so sold, and actually receive the same or give something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part payment, or that some note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain, be made and signed by the parties to be charged by such contract, or their agent, thereunto lawfully authorized.”
This being a contract for tne sale of shares in an incorporated company in a neighboring State, for the price of more than ten pounds, and no part having been delivered, and no purchase money or earnest paid, the question is, whether it can be allowed to be good, without a note or memorandum in writing, signed by the party to be charged with it. This depends upon the question, whether such shares are goods, wares or merchandise within the true meaning of the statute.
It is somewhat remarkable that this question, arising on the St. 29 Car. 2, in the same terms, which ours has copied, has not been definitively settled in England. In the case of Pickering v. Appleby, Com. Rep. 354, the case was directly and fully argued, before the twelve judges, who were equally *13divided upon it. But in several other cases afterwards determined in Chancery, the better opinion seemed to be, that shares in incorporated companies, were within the statute, as goods or merchandise. Mussell v. Cooke, Prec. in Ch. 533 ; Crull v. Dodson, Sel. Cas. in Ch. 41.
We are inclined to the opinion, that the weight of authorities, in modern times, is, that contracts for the sale of stocks and shares in incorporated companies, for more than ten pounds, are not valid, unless there has been a note or memorandum in writing, or earnest or part payment. 4 Wheaton, 89, note ; 3 Starkie on Evid. 4th Amer. Edit. 608.
Supposing this a new question now for the first time calling for a construction of the statute, the Court are of opinion, that as well by its terms, as its general policy, stocks are fairly within its operation. The words “goods” and “merchandise,” are both of very large signification. Bona, as used in the civil law, is almost as extensive as personal property itself, and in many respects it has nearly as large a significado i in the common law. The word “ merchandise ” also, including in general, objects of traffic and commerce, is broad enough to include stocks or shares in incorporated companies.
There are many cases indeed in which it has been held in England, that buying and selling stocks did not subject a person to the operation of the bankrupt laws, and thence it has been argued that they cannot be considered as merchandise, because bankruptcy extends to persons using the trade of merchandise. But it must be recollected that the bankrupt acts were deemed to be highly penal, and coercive, and tended to deprive a man in trade of all his property. But most joint stock companies were founded on the hypothesis at least, that most of the shareholders took shares as an investment and not as an object of traffic ; and the construction in question only decided, that by taking and' holding such shares merely as an investment, a man should not be deemed a merchant so as to subject himself to the highly coercive process of the bankrupt laws. These cases, therefore, do not bear much on the general question.
The main argument relied upon, by those who contend that *14shares are not within the statute, is this. That statute pro vides that such contract shall not be good &c., among other things, except the purchaser shall accept part of the goods. From this it is argued, that by necessary implication, the statute applies only to goods, of which part may be delivered. This seems however to be rather a narrow and forced construction. The provision is general, that no contract for the sale of goods &c. shall be allowed to be good. The exception is, when part are delivered ; but if part cannot be delivered, then the exception cannot exist to take the case out of the general prohibition. The provision extended to a great variety of objects, and the exception may well be construed to apply only to such of those objects to which it is applicable, without affecting others, to which from their nature it cannot apply.
There is nothing in the nature of stocks, or shares in companies, which in reason or sound policy should exempt contracts in respect to them from those reasonable restrictions, designed by the statute to prevent frauds in the sale of other commodities. On the contrary, these companies have become so numerous, so large an amount of the property of the community is now invested in them, and as the ordinary indicia of property, arising from delivery and possession, cannot take place, there seems to be peculiar reason for extending the provisions of this statute to them. As they may properly be included under the terms goods, as they are within the reason and policy of the act, the Court are of opinion, that a contract for the sale of shares, in the absence of the other requisites, must be proved by some note or memorandum in writing ; and as there was no such memorandum in writing, in the present case, the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this action. As to the argument, that here was a part performance, by a payment of the money on one side, -and the delivery of the certificate on the other, these acts took place after this action was brought, and cannot therefore be relied upon to show a cause of action when the action was commenced.
Verdict set aside and plaintiff nonsuit.