Case ID: johns_10/html/0246-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Moore against Fox.
    NEW YORK,
    May, 1813.
    To bring » promise,oragreemeut, nth section of fraudaat(sessf io. c 44.) an express greemenfw formed Jiih" in the space if the thing n™pert'ormed within a year, in the statute,
    to pay B™two dollars a year for his servíees as a minisler in a certain church, paid for sere® i-ai years, half yearly, it was field to be a valid promise, for the jury might infer that it was a promise to pay half yearly.
    
    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 the incorporation of religious societies. There was a trial by jury. The plaintiff proved by P. L. that the defendant told the witness, before, that he had promised to pay the plaintiff 2 dollars a year, for his services, as minister; and since that time the defendant had continued to pay 2 dollars a year, in half yearly payments, until about 2 years ago. The defendant told the witness he would pay the plaintiff, but he had not done it. The plaintiff has continued to preach in the same church and to the same congregation.
    I* admitted, by the plaintiff’s counsel, that the agreement with the plaintiff was by parol, no written contract having been entered into between him and the defendant, or other members of his church, as to the payment of his salary; but that his depend.ence was on the parol agreement of the individual members.
    The defendant’s counsel then moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that this parol contract was void by the statute of frauds ; but tlie justice decided that the cause should go to the jury, as it did not appear from the contract but that it was to pay within one year.
    The plaintiff further proved that the defendant had paid the sum of 2 dollars, for several years, in half yearly payments.
    The defendant offered parol evidence of the incorporation of the church under the statute, and of the appointment of the trustees, &c. but the evidence was rejected as inadmissible.
    The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 4 dollars, on which the justice gave judgment.
   Per Curiam.

The 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.

Judgment affirmed,