Moore v. Fox

Decided May 15, 1813

New York Supreme Court · decided 1813-05-15

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Vox , , . „ brought an action of assumpsit against Moore before the justice d declared that the defendant Moore was indebted to him for minister, for two years, to the amount-of 4 dollars, which Moore promised to pay at the rate of two dollars a year, The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, with notice that the church, which the plaintiff below was minister, was incorporated, and ^ad trustees appointed pursuant to the statute for…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1813-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 1936

10 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The promise ivas valid, and not within the statute of frauds, for it does not appear but that it was to be performed within a jrear. It was to be performed according and in proportion to the service rendered, and the render of service was to commence immediately; and as the defendant had for several years paid half yearly, the jury had a right to presume that the promise was to pay half yearly. To bring the case within the statute of frauds, there must be an express and specific agreement not to be performed within the space of a year; and if the thing may be performed within the year, it is not within the act (Fenton v. Embler, 3 Burr. 1278.) This was a clear case of an express agreement to pay for services to be rendered, and the recovery was just The judgment must be affirmed.

¶2Judgment affirmed,