Patten v. Hicks

43 Cal. 509
California Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1872·No. No. 3,236·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Belcher, J.:

The contract declared on was not to be performed within one year from the making thereof) and the parties having failed to reduce it to writing, or to make any note or memorandum thereof, it is within the Statute of Frauds and void.

For the labor and services performed under this void contract the plaintiff can only recover on a quantum meruit. Ho such count being found in the complaint, the judgment must be reversed.

When the case is again in the Court below the plaintiff may amend his complaint if he is so advised.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Mr. Justice Crockett did not express an opinion.

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

Patten v. Hicks, 43 Cal. 509 (Cal. 1872).

43 Cal. 509 (Patten v. Hicks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dreidlein v. Manger
220 P. 1107 (Montana Supreme Court, 1923)
Deal v. . Wilson
101 S.E. 205 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Fabian v. Wasatch Orchard Co.
125 P. 860 (Utah Supreme Court, 1912)
Brown v. Crown Gold Milling Co.
89 P. 86 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Cozad v. Elam
91 S.W. 434 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Feeney v. Howard
4 L.R.A. 826 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
McCarthy v. Pope
52 Cal. 561 (California Supreme Court, 1878)
Towsley v. Moore
30 Ohio St. (N.S.) 184 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1876)