Paschall v. Anderson

Decision Date25 March 1936
Docket NumberNo. 1946-6570.,1946-6570.
Citation91 S.W.2d 1050
PartiesPASCHALL et ux. v. ANDERSON.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Plaintiffs in error, Roy Paschall and wife, sued defendant in error, O. T. Anderson, in the district court of Young county to recover the sum of $1,000 and interest. The parties will be designated as in the trial court. Plaintiffs based their suit upon a contract alleged and proven to have been made in July, 1929. The substance of the contract, as shown by proof of plaintiffs, was that plaintiff Roy Paschall would take charge of the ranch owned by defendant and would manage same as foreman for the remainder of the year 1929 and for the year 1930. For the balance of 1929 he was to be paid $50 a month, and for the year 1930 he was to be paid $100 a month, and in addition was guaranteed a "bonus, stipend or reward" of not less than $1,000. The suit was for the "bonus" with interest at 6 per cent. from January 1, 1931. The agreement was not in writing. At the time of the making of the contract, plaintiffs were in possession of the place; defendant having shortly prior thereto purchased same from them. They remained upon the land until about July, 1931, and performed the services for the year 1930 contemplated by the agreement. They were paid the salary agreed upon, and in addition received substantial benefits from the place. The judgment in favor of plaintiffs for the full amount sued for with interest was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals and judgment rendered in favor of defendant. 60 S.W.(2d) 1087.

Among other defenses, defendant relied upon article 3995 of the Revised Statutes of 1925, which provides that "no action shall be brought in any court * * * upon any agreement which is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof," unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the party sought to be bound thereby. Manifestly, the contract relied upon was within the statute, as it could not have been performed within one year from the date of the making. Rease v. Clarksville Cotton Oil Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 248 S.W. 434; Moody v. Jones (Tex.Civ. App.) 37 S.W. 379, 380. While this is practically admitted, yet plaintiffs rely upon the proposition that they fully performed their part of the agreement, and it was therefore taken out from under the statute of fraud. We do not find it necessary to consider the questions discussed by the Court of Civil Appeals. We find that plaintiffs pleaded no facts and circumstances which would make it unfair and inequitable, or that would amount to a fraud against them, in the event the statute was enforced. Defendant pleaded the statute, both by way of demurrer and special plea, and plaintiffs filed no replication to same.

It is fundamental that "to warrant equity's `breaking through the statute' to enforce such a parol contract, the case must be such that the nonenforcement of the contract —or the enforcement of the statute— would, itself, plainly amount to a fraud." Hooks v. Bridgewater, 111 Tex. 122, 229 S.W. 1114, 1116, 15 A.L.R. 216. When the statute is interposed, if there be facts and circumstances to justify equitable relief from same, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Hodge v. Evans Financial Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • December 3, 1985
    ...Inc., 352 F.Supp. 580, 583-84 (W.D.Pa.1972); see also Price v. Press Pub. Co., 117 A.D. 854, 103 N.Y.S. 296 (1907); Paschall v. Anderson, 127 Tex. 251, 91 S.W.2d 1050 (1936). In Lee v. Jenkins Bros., 268 F.2d 357 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 913, 80 S.Ct. 257, 4 L.Ed.2d 183 (1959), a c......
  • In re Woodstone Ltd. Partnership
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 8, 1991
    ...may take an oral agreement out of the Statute of Frauds. See Anderson v. Paschall, 60 S.W.2d 1087 (Tex.Civ.App.1933), aff'd 127 Tex. 251, 91 S.W.2d 1050 (1936); Walker v. Lorehn, 355 S.W.2d 71 (Tex.Civ.App.1962); Francis v. Thomas, 129 Tex. 579, 106 S.W.2d 257 (1937). (v) Even if a contract......
  • Young v. Ward
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 6, 1996
    ...213 S.W.2d 530, 533 (Tex. 1948) (employment contract for term of one year and several weeks within statute); Paschall v. Anderson, 127 Tex. 251, 91 S.W.2d 1050, 1051 (1936) (same); Shaheen v. Motion Indus., Inc., 880 S.W.2d 88, 91 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied) (employment con......
  • Mercer v. C. A. Roberts Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 6, 1978 an employee has been held insufficient to render the statute of frauds inoperative. E. g., Paschall v. Anderson, 127 Tex. 251, 91 S.W.2d 1050 (Tex.Comm.App.1936, opinion adopted); Chevalier v. Lane's, Inc., 147 Tex. 106, 213 S.W.2d 530 (1948); Collins v. McCombs, 511 S.W.2d 745 (Tex.Civ.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT