Case Name: HUBBARD v. HUBBARD
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-05-08
Citations: 135 N.Y.S. 908
Docket Number: 
Parties: HUBBARD v. HUBBARD.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 135
Pages: 908–915

Head Matter:
HUBBARD v. HUBBARD.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
May 8, 1912.)
1. Frauds, Statute of (§ 45*)—Agreement Not to be Performed within
One Tear.
The buyer of corporate stock under a parol agreement that the seller should pay her a certain annual per cent, on the same could not recover on the parol agreement, it being within Personal Property Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 41) § 31, which requires that an agreement not to be performed within one year shall be in writing.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Frauds, Statute of, Cent. Dig. §§ 67-71; Dec. Dig. § 45.*]
2. Frauds, Statute of (§ 129*)—Performance.
Performance by the buyer in such case does not take the contract out of the statute.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Ffauds, Statute of, Cent. Dig. §§ 287-292; Dec. Dig. § 129.*]
*For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
3. Frauds, Statute of (§ 138*)—Implied Contract—Remedy.
Where the buyer of corporate stock upon a void parol agreement that the seller should pay her 12 per cent, annually upon its par value paid for the same in property and received it, but failed to receive the annual 12 per cent., she could recover upon the seller’s implied promise to pay what the property transferred to her was reasonably worth, making allowance for what she had received.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Frauds, Statute of, Cent. Dig. §§ 327-333; Dec. Dig. § 138.*]
4. Contracts (§ 346*)—Pleadings—Express or Implied Contracts.
Where an action is founded upon a void express contract, recovery cannot be had on the theory of an implied contract.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1718-1753; Dec. Dig. § 346.*]
5. Exchange of Property (§ 13*)—Contract—Pleadings—Sufficiency.
Where the complaint alleged that plaintiff had exchanged certain property for corporate stock upon an agreement that the defendant should pay her 12 per cent, annually upon its par value, and sought to recover this annual 12 per cent., but failed to allege the value of the property exchanged for the stock or the value of the stock except its par value, or how long the annual payments were to continue, it was fatally defective and demurrable.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Exchange of Property, Cent. Dig. §§ 25-29; Dec. Dig. § 13.*]
McLennan, P. J., dissenting.
♦For other cases see same tonic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
Appeal from Special Term, Erie County.
Action by Bertha Hubbard against Elbert Hubbard. From an interlocutory judgment overruling demurrer to amended complaint, defendant appeals. Interlocutory judgment reversed, and demurrer sustained. Eeave to appeal to Court of Appeals granted. 136 N. Y. Supp. 1138.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, KRUSE, ROBSON, and FOOTE, JJ.
James McCormick Mitchell, of Buffalo, for appellant.
Ford White, of Buffalo, for respondent.

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
The complaint to which the demurrer is interposed alleges, in substance, that, pursuant to an oral contract made between the parties to the action, the plaintiff conveyed to a corporation, at defendant's request, her interest in certain property in exchange for certain shares of the stock of the corporation upon the agreement by the defendant that he would pay her 12 per centum annually upon the par value of the stock. She received the stock, but has not been paid the annual 12 per cent. The action is brought to recover the.same, and the question is whether the statute of frauds applies.
I am of the opinion that if this oral contract was not to be performed within one year from the making thereof, as the complaint indicates, it falls within the condemnation of the statute which requires such an agreement, promise, or undertaking or some note or memorandum thereof to be in writing and subscribed by the party charged therewith or his lawful agent. Personal Property- Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 41) § 31.
The fact that the plaintiff performed the contract upon her part does not seem to take the case out of the statute, but in such case the plaintiff may recover upon an implied promise to pay what the property which she transferred to the defendant was reasonably worth, making allowance for what she has received. Wood v. Shultis, 4 Hun, 309; Day v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 583; Id., 22 Hun, 412; Id., 89 N. Y. 616; Reed v. McConnell, 133 N. Y. 425, 31 N. E. 22.
The action is founded upon an express contract, and seems to fall within the rule applied in the case of Reéd v. McConnell, supra, where it appeared that the contract was void, and a recovery was not permitted upon the theory of an implied contract.
The complaint is silent as to the value of the property conveyed by the plaintiff or the value of the stock, except the par value of the stock is given; and it is difficult to say from the complaint how long the annual payments were to continue, whether for one year, for the life of the plaintiff, or as long as she held the stock, as no time is stated.
It seems to me that the complaint is vitally defective, and that the demurrer must be sustained. If I am right, it follows that the interlocutory judgment overruling the demurrer should be reversed and the demurrer sustained, with costs, with leave to amend upon the usual terms.
Interlocutory judgment reversed, with costs, and demurrer sustained, with costs, with leave to the plaintiff to plead over within '20 days upon payment of the costs of the demurrer and of this appeal. All concur, except McLENNAN, P. J., who dissents in an opinion.