Abbott v. Inskip
Ohio Supreme Court
Motion for leave to file a petition in error to the District Court of Brown county. The plaintiff, an infant, sued the defendant to recover the value of work and labor performed by the plaintiff for the defendant between February, 1871, and February, 1875. The defendant in his answer set up that the work and labor sued for were rendered under a verbal contract entered into between the defendant and the plaintiff’s mother in the year 1864. That at the date of the contract the…
Read the full summary
Motion for leave to file a petition in error to the District Court of Brown county. The plaintiff, an infant, sued the defendant to recover the value of work and labor performed by the plaintiff for the defendant between February, 1871, and February, 1875. The defendant in his answer set up that the work and labor sued for were rendered under a verbal contract entered into between the defendant and the plaintiff’s mother in the year 1864. That at the date of the contract the plaintiff was only nine years old, and was in the custody and under the control of his mother, who was entitled to his…
1Opinion of the CourtMcIlvaine, J.
There is no question made as to the right of the plaintiff’s mother to have bound him by a written contract duly executed.
The contention of the plaintiff in error is :
1. That the agreement set up in the answer was void under the statute of frauds.
*612. That the plaintiff in error was not bound by it under the 'statute concerning apprentices and servants.
It is true that the agreement could not have been performed within a year from the making thereof, and, therefore, under the statute of frauds, it could not have been enforced by action. It might, however, have been performed by the parties, and,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- La Du-King Manufacturing Co. v. La DuSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Murphy v. De HaanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Murray v. Marbro Builders, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1977
- Fisher v. KissingerOhio Circuit Courts · 1903
- Towsley v. MooreOhio Supreme Court · 1876