As the contract is stated in the bill of exceptions, we think it was a contract to sell and deliver the bending-stuff and plank, and not a contract for labor in manufacturing the articles. It is not therefore like the cases of Mixer v. Howarth, 21 Pick. 205, and Spencer v. Cone, 1 Met. 283; but like Gardner v. Joy, 9 Met. 177; Lamb v. Crafts, 12 Met. 353; and Waterman v. Meigs, 4 Cush. 497 ; and was within the statute of frauds.

Exceptions overruled.