Henry & Bro. v. Wells
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Drew Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Bradley, Judge. 1. The contract being a verbal one, and not to be performed within a year, was within the statute of frauds, and void. . Mansf. Dig., sec. 337l,subdivis. 6; Meyer v. Roberts, 46 Ark., 80; 1 Parsons on Gont., 529; Waite’s Act• and Def., vol. 7,p. 43; 55 Mo., 97; 36 Ala., 351; 13 R. 1., 480; 26 Ga., 551; 2 Helt{N. Y.) 116; 22 III, 248. 2. The verdict is contrary to the evidence.
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The complaint stated that the defendants had employed the plaintiff as a bar-tender for the whole of the year 1884, but had, on the 1st day of May, in that year, discharged him without cause, paying his wages only to that date. The prayer was for a recovery of wages for the remaining months. The answer, among other defenses, set up the statute of frauds. The proof was that the contract was made in November, 1888, and according to the plaintiff’s version, was to include the remainder of that year and the year following, and that it was not manifested by any writing. The court charged, in…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Oak Leaf Mill Co. v. CooperSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Reed Oil Company v. CainSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Bald Knob Special School District v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
- Storthz v. WattsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Stooksberry v. PiggSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.