Mitchell v. Hanley
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). The judgment of the circuit court was wrong. In the very nature of things the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant could not be performed within a year, and was void within the sixth subdivision of § 4862 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, which provides, in effect, that no action shall be brought to charge any person upon any promise, contract, or agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the mailing thereof, unless the same is in writing and signed'by the party to be charged therewith.
This court has held that the statute applies…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Oak Leaf Mill Co. v. CooperSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Reed Oil Company v. CainSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Henry & Bro. v. WellsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Johnson v. CheekSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
3Cited by3 opinions
- Norton v. HindsleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
- White v. Southern Kraft Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942
- Cobb v. Southern Plaswood Corp.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1959