Legal Opinion

Yarborough v. Hi-Flier Manufacturing Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 27, 1940No. 28421PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) One of the grounds of general demurrer was that it appeared from the declaration as amended that the suit was “on an oral contract not to be performed within one year, and such is therefore not enforceable under the statute of frauds.” The statute of frauds embraces “any agreement . . that is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof.” Code, § 20-401. In White v. Simplex Radio Company, 61 Ga. App. 157 (5 S. E. 2d, 922), following answer of the Supreme Court to certified question (188 Ga. 412, 3 S. E. 2d, 890), it was held: “An oral…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bentley v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
  2. Bagwell v. MilamCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
  3. Neuhoff v. Swift & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
  4. Morris v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
  5. Alexander-Seewald Co. v. MarettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Hudson v. Venture Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1979
  2. Imex International, Inc. v. Wires EngineeringCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2003
  3. Sierra Associates, Ltd. v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
  4. Grace v. RoanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1978
  5. ALODEX CORPORATION v. BrawnerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API