Haynes v. Mason

30 Ill. App. 85, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 223
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided January 16, 1889·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Moran, J.

From the evidence set out in the statement of facts, which is all the evidence contained in the record on the subject, we think it very clear that the contract of appellee was one entered into on March 26, 1885, to work for appellant for one year, the year to commence on Monday, March 30, 1885..

The contract, by its terms, was not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof, and, not being in writing, it is within the first section of the statute of frauds. Butcher Steel Works v. Atkinson, 68 Ill. 421; Curtis v. Sage, 35 Ill. 22.

We think the court was correct in refusing to charge appellee with the accounts claimed by appellant against her on the alleged guaranty, but for the error in allowing to her the salary for the balance of the' year which would have been justly hers if her contract had been one valid in law, the j udgment must be reversed and the case remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Haynes v. Mason, 30 Ill. App. 85, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 223 (Ill. Ct. App. 1889).

30 Ill. App. 85 (Haynes v. Mason) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Collection & Investigation Bureau of Maryland, Inc. v. Linsley
375 A.2d 47 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1977)
Sinclair v. Sullivan Chevrolet Co.
202 N.E.2d 516 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1964)
Westgate v. City of Aurora
229 Ill. App. 84 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1923)