Richard v. Kilborn

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hoch, J.:

This was an action to recover for services rendered under an oral contract. Plaintiff prevailed, and defendant appeals.

Three principal contentions are made by appellant: That the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, that the contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds, and that a mistrial should have been declared on account of improper comment made by the plaintiff’s attorney in his argument to the jury.

The record is quite lengthy, with many details recited. However, for purposes of this review the story may be briefly…