Warner v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Citations
- 164 U.S. 418
- 17 S. Ct. 147
- 41 L. Ed. 495
- 1896 U.S. LEXIS 1878
Syllabus
<p>The clause of the statute of frauds, which requires a memorandum in writing of “ any agreement which is not to bé performed within the space of one year from the making thereof,” applies only to agreements which, according to the intention of the parties, as shown by the terms of their contract, cannot be fully performed within a year; and not to an agreement which may be fully performed within the year, although the time of performance is uncertain, and may probably extend, and may have been expected by the parties to extend, and does in fact extend, beyond the year.</p> <p>An oral agreement between a railroad company and the owner of a mill, by which it is agreed that, if he will furnish the ties and grade the ground for a switch opposite his mill, the company will put down the iron rails and maintain the switch for his benefit for shipping purposes as long as he needs it, is not within the statute of frauds, as an agreement not to be performed within a year.</p> <p>The provisions of the statute of frauds of the State of Texas concerning sales or leases of real estate do not include grants of easements.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding an oral agreement to maintain a railway as long as plaintiff needed the railway is capable of being performed within one year because plaintiffs need might be satisfied within one year
- “The question is not what the probable, or expected, or actual performance of the contract was; but whether the contract, according to the reasonable interpretation of its terms, required that it should not be performed within the year.”
- “The question is not what the probable, or expected, or actual performance of the contract was; but whether the contract, according to the reasonable interpretation of its terms, required that it should not be performed within the year.”
- “The question is not what the probable, or expected, or actual performance of the contract was; but whether the contract, according to the reasonable interpretation of its terms, required that it should not be performed within the year.”
- “The question is not what [the] probable, or expected, or actual performance of the contract was, but whether the contract, according to the reasonable interpretation of its terms, required that it should not be performed within the year.”
- railyard's oral agreement to maintain rail switch for as long as plaintiff used the railroad did not violate the statute of frauds since there remained the possibility at the making of the contract that plaintiff's need for the railway would end before one year
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gray
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.