Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Mo. 46

Pitcher v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided September 15, 1837

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1837-09-15

The court below erred im permitting the verbal’contract to be given in evidence, and in refusing to grant a •new trial, for the reason that said contract was not to be .performed within a year from the makingof the same; it was in the statute of frauds and void. — See Blanton v.Knox, 3 Mo. Rep. 342; Chi tty on Contracts, 208-9; X Barnwell and Alderson’s Reports, 723.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1837-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1973

1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

20183718401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

ToMPEtNs, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Lewis Wilson brought an action of assumpsit against Thomas Pitcher, in the circuit court. Plea, non-assump-sit, and issue joined; verdict for the plaintiffj and judgment accordingly. To reverse the judgment of the circuit court this appeal is prosecuted. The evidence saved in the bill of exceptions shows that some years since, the plaintiff agreed to serve the defendant five years, in consideration of certain things to be done by the defendant for the plaintiff. The plaintiff proved that he had served the defendant the time agreed on. The defendant moved the court to instruct the jury that there was no legal evidence before them.

¶3The defendant relies on the statute of frauds; by the first section of which, it is provided that no action shall be brought upon any agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof, unless the agreement upon which the action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person, by him thereto lawfully authorized. The case of Blanton v. Knox, decided by this court, see 3d vol. Mo. Decisions, was not like .¿his; there Blanton, hired the negro to Knox for a year, and it was the opinion of the court that Blanton could recover, he hav*49ing performed his part of the contract by delivering the negro into the possession of Knox, and it being the part of Knox to see that the negro performed his duty. In the present case it is a free person who contracts to form services' for the term of five years, and before the expiration of that time he cannot claim his pay. The evidence was admissible under the general issue — see Chitty’s Pleadings, vol. 1, 474; where it is said it may either be pleaded or given in evidence that the contract was against the statute of frauds. The instructions •prayed for ought to have been given, and the judgment of the circuit court, for refusing to give such-instructions, ought, in my opinion, to be reversed; and the other two Judges concurring in this opinion, it is reversed and the cause remanded.

/5/mo/46 · .json · Public domain