Oddy v. James

Headnote

Where a verbal agreement is entered into for the work and labor of one of the parties for a year, to commence in futuro, an entry upon the employment, with the acquiescence of the employer, but without a new contract, does not take the case out of the statute of frauds, and the employer is not liable under the contract.

Action to recover a balance claimed to be due under a verbal contract for work and labor.

About the middle of March, 1861, the parties entered into a verbal agreement by which defendant employed plaintiff to superintend his cement works for one year from the first of April then next, for $900. On the 1st of April plaintiff entered upon the employment, took charge of the works and continued his superintendency thereof until August 3d, when he was discharged by defendant. His services for the remainder of the year were offered and refused, defendant claiming the agreement was void under the statute of frauds, and that plaintiff could only recover compensation for the time of actual service.

The court ruled adversely to the claim, and submitted the question, whether there was a new contract, to the jury, who found a verdict for plaintiff, which was affirmed at General Term. Held, that plaintiff could not recover under the new contract; there was no evidence to justify the finding of a new contract, and the submission to the jury was, therefore, error.