Baltimore Breweries Co. v. Callahan

Citations

• 82 Md. 106
• 33 A. 460
• 1895 Md. LEXIS 108

Syllabus

<p>Contracts— Year Clause of the Statute of Frauds.</p> <p>Where it appears upon the face of a contract that it can possibly be performed, upon the happening of a contingency, within one year from the time of making, it is not within the fourth section of the Statute of Frauds.</p> <p>In contracts within that section, it is sufficient if the consideration can be implied with certainty from the instrument itself.</p> <p>A contract in writing dated Sept. 5, 1893, and signed by the parties, stated that the defendant had employed the plaintiff for the term of one year, beginning on-day of Sept., 1893, and ending on the —— day of Sept., 1894, at a certain salary. The day for the beginning of the service was left blank because plaintiff did not know when he would be released from the service of a third person, who then employed him. Plaintiff afterwards informed defendant that he could not begin work under the contract until Sept. n. After entering upon the stipulated employment plaintiff was discharged. In an action on the contract, Held,</p> <p>1st. That if the plaintiff had been released by his former employer on Sept. 5, he could have begun his service with the defendant on that day, and the contract was therefore not within the year clause of the Statute of Frauds.</p> <p>2nd. That if the contract were within the statute, yet the above memorandum was a sufficient statement of the consideration, because a promise on the part of the plaintiff to render the service is implied from the language of the agreement.</p>