Patten v. Hicks

Contract within the Statute of Frauds.—A verbal contract, by which the plaintiff agrees to cut and deliver to the defendant, at the defendant’s mill, saw-logs sufficient to keep the defendant’s mill running to its full capacity for two years from its date, is not to be performed within one year, and is therefore void under the Statute of Frauds. Recovery on Void Contract.—For labor and services performed under a contract, which is void under the Statute of Frauds, a recovery may be had by declaring a quantum meruit, but not by declaring on the contract itself. (

Appeal from the Bistrict Court of the Third Judicial Bistrict, Santa Cruz County. The complaint averred, that on the 10th' day of May, 1869, the plaintiff and defendants made an agreement, by which the plaintiff was to cut saw-logs on the defendants’ land and deliver at the defendants’ sawmill sufficient to keep the defendants’ mill running to its full capacity for the period of two years from the date of the contract, and that the defendants were to pay the plaintiff five dollars and fifty cents per thousand feet for all lumber timber so cut and delivered, to be ascertained and measured at the tail of defendants’ mill, and to be so paid to plaintiff' as fast as so ascertained for said two years; that under said contract the plaintiff had cut and delivered saw-logs and lumber timber to the amount of seven hundred and ninety thousand five hundred and twenty-three feet, which, at five dollars and fifty cents per thousand, amounted to four thousand three hundred and forty-seven dollars and eighty-seven cents. The answer denied the contract as alleged, and set up that it was only a contract for the milling season, from April forward seven or nine months, at five dollars per thousand feet, and set up a counterclaim. It appeared by the testimony that the contract was a verbal one, and no note or memorandum of it was made in writing. The plaintiff recovered judgment in the Court below and the defendant appealed.