Shumate v. Farlow

• Decision Date: 11 October 1890
• Parties: Shumate v. Farlow.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

125 Ind. 359

25 N.E. 432

Shumate

v.Farlow.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 11, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, Wayne county; D. W. Comstock, Judge.

Peele & Whitesell, for appellant. Henry U. Johnson, for appellee.

Mitchell, J.

The only question for decision involves the propriety of the ruling of the court in sustaining a demurrer to a complaint in which the appellant charged, in substance, that he entered into a contract with the appellee, Farlow, on the 10th day of November, 1887, whereby the latter agreed that, if the former would move on to his, the defendant's, farm, and work for him, he would pay him a certain stipulated sum per month, commencing on the 1st day of March then next ensuing, to continue for the period of nine months from March 1, 1888. The plaintiff avers that he moved on to the defendant's farm on the 6th day of December, 1887, in compliance with his agreement, taking his family and household effects, and that he was ready to enter upon the performance of his contract to work on March 1, 1887, and so notified the defendant, but that the latter repudiated his agreement, and refused to designated any work to be done, or to comply with his contract in any way, whereby the plaintiff sustained damage in moving, loss of time, and other engagements for work. The contract relied upon was by parol, and was not to be performed within one year, and the question is whether it was so far valid as to sustain an action to recover damages for its breach. The contract, as we have seen, was made on the 10th day of November, 1887. The controlling feature of the agreement, and the one for the breach of which this action was brought, was that the appellant was to be furnished with employment, at a stipulated price, to be paid by the appellee, for the period of nine months, to commence March 1, 1888. It was impossible, therefore, consistently with the intention of the parties, according to the express terms of the contract, that the agreement could have been fully performed within one year from the time it was made. An oral agreement for a term of service which extends beyond, and cannot expire within, one year from the date on which it was made, is within the statute of frauds, and is void, so far as it remains unexecuted. No action can be maintained upon such an agreement, either for the purpose of enforcing it or to recover damages for its breach. Schoonover v. Vachon, 121 Ind. 3, 22 N. E. Rep. 777, and cases cited; Meyer v....