Johnson Clinic, Inc. v. Huffnagle
| Decision Date | 13 May 1974 |
| Citation | 310 N.E.2d 628,2 Mass.App.Ct. 837 |
| Parties | The JOHNSON CLINIC, INC. v. Frederic T. HUFFNAGLE. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Stuart I. August, Boston (Thomas F. Broderick, Boston, with him), for defendant.
Allen C. B. Horsley, Boston, for plaintiff.
Before HALE, C.J., and KEVILLE and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
This is an appeal from a final decree on a bill in equity for an accounting which ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of money plus interest. The judge made a report of material facts. The made findings, supported by the evidence designated, that the plaintiff, then a partnership of physicians engaged in group practice (now a corporation), entered into an oral agreement with the defendant, an orthopedic surgeon, under which the defendant would practice his specialty with the group and would pay over to the earned in such (now the plaintiff) all fees earned in such practice. The defendant in turn was to be paid a salary and be furnished office space, equipment, and staff. The contract was for an indefinite period and was terminable at the will of the parties. The defendant failed to pay over to the plaintiff some of the fees he received, the amounts of which are not now in question. The only questions for our decision are whether the contract was within the statute of frauds (G.L. c. 259, § 1, Fifth) and whether, for that reason, we should order the dismissal of the plaintiff's bill. We hold that the contract was one capable of being performed within one year and thus not within the statute. Bolton v. Van Heusen, 249 Mass. 503, 506, 144 N.E. 384 (1924). National Overall Dry Cleaning Co. v. Yavner, 321 Mass. 434, 438, 73 N.E.2d 744 (1947). Dunne v. Fall River, 328 Mass. 332, 334, 104 N.E.2d 157 (1952). Williston, Contracts (3d ed.) § 495. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the contract was not one for a period of time in excess of one year and subject to defeasance or cancellation within that time. This case is therefore distinguishable from cases such as Marble v. Clinton, 298 Mass. 87, 89, 9 N.E.2d 522 (1937) (dicta). See Williston, Contracts (3d ed.) § 498A.
Decree affirmed with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyle v. Douglas Dynamics, Civil Action No. 00-12629-RGS (Mass. 8/29/2003)
...Meng v. Trs. of Boston Univ., 44 Mass. App. Ct. 650, 652, 693 N.E.2d 183, 185 (citing, inter alia, Johnson Clinic, Inc. v. Huffnagle, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 837, 837, 310 N.E.2d 628, 628-29 (1974) for the proposition that oral at will employment contracts fall the statute because the "employer ma......
-
Boyle v. Douglas Dynamics, LLC, CIV.A. 00-12629-RGS.
...Meng v. Trs. of Boston Univ., 44 Mass.App.Ct. 650, 652, 693 N.E.2d 183, 185 (citing, inter alia, Johnson Clinic, Inc. v. Huffnagle, 2 Mass.App.Ct. 837, 837, 310 N.E.2d 628, 628-29 (1974) for the proposition that oral at will employment contracts fall outside the statute because the "employe......
-
Doherty v. Doherty Ins. Agency, Inc., 88-1626
...one year."); 3 S. Williston, Williston on Contracts Sec. 495, at 579-80 (3d ed. 1960) (cited in The Johnson Clinic, Inc. v. Huffnagle, 2 Mass.App.Ct. 837, 837, 310 N.E.2d 628, 629 (1974)). The cases cited by Insurance are not to the contrary. Both Richard Tucker Associates, Inc. v. Smith, 3......
-
Powers v. Boston Cooper Corp.
...v. Rodman Ford Sales, Inc., 462 F.Supp. 947, 948-49 (D.Mass.1979) (applying Massachusetts law); Johnson Clinic, Inc. v. Huffnagle, 2 Mass.App.Ct. 837, 310 N.E.2d 628, 629 (1974); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts Sec. 130 comment b, illustration 5 (1979) (oral contract falls within......