Case Name: Frank J. Mackey and another vs. A. H. Potter and others
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1886-02-17
Citations: 34 Minn. 510
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frank J. Mackey and another vs. A. H. Potter and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 510–511

Head Matter:
Frank J. Mackey and another vs. A. H. Potter and others.
February 17, 1886.
Statute of Frauds —Agreement not to be Performed within a Tear. —A finding of fact that on or about the first of April premises were leased for one year from the first of April does not present the objection that the leasing was an agreement not to be performed within one year from the making thereof.
Plaintiffs brought this action in the municipal court of Minneapolis, to recover rent due on a lease for one year, alleged to have been made between plaintiffs and defendants. The answer denied the making of the lease. The action was tried by the court, who found that the lease was made as stated in the opinion and directed judgment for the plaintiffs. Defendants appeal from an order refusing a new trial.
Smith é Childs, for appellants.
■J. N. Garmon, for respondents.

Opinion:
Gileillan, C. J.
The court below finds that on or about the first day of April, 1884, the plaintiffs leased to the defendants the premises for the term of one year from April 1, 1884; the leasing having been, as appears from the evidence, by parol. The finding does not bring the ease within the first subdivision of section 6, chapter 41, Gen. St. 1878, so as to present the point made by defendants that the leasing is void as an agreement "that, by its terms, is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof." Whether this section applies to an agreement to lease real estate, the authorities do not agree; but, in cases where it does apply, it must appear that the agreement cannot be performed, according to its terms, within one year from the time when it was made. In this case it does not appear that it was made before April 1st, and consequently it does not appear that it was made more than one year before the end of the term. The evidence was indefinite as to the time when the assent of both parties was given to the agreement, but it justified the finding.
Order affirmed.