Opinion of the Court.

contract, according to the understanding and contemplation of the parties, as manifested by the terms of the contract, was not to be fully performed (by the completion of the whole work) within the year; and consequently, a full completion within the year, even if physically possible, would not have been according to the terms or the intent of the contract, and could not have entitled the publishers to demand immediate payment of the whole subscription.

In Wells v. Horton, (1826) 4 Bing. 40; S. C. 12 J. B. Moore, 177, it was held to be settled by the earlier authorities that an agreement by which a debtor, in consideration of his creditor's agreeing to forbear to sue him during his lifetime, promised that his executor should pay the amount of the debt, was not within the statute; and Chief Justice Best said: "The present case is clearly distinguishable from Boydell v. Drummond, where upon the face of the agreement it appeared that the contract was not to be executed within a year."

In Souch v. Strawbridge, (1846) 2 C. B. 808, a contract to support a child, for a guinea a month, as long as the child's father should think proper, was held not to be within the. statute, which, as Chief Justice Tindal said, "speaks of any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof'; pointing to contracts the complete performance of which is of necessity extended beyond the space of a year. That appears clearly from the case of Boydell v. Drummond, the rule to be extracted from which is, that, where the agreement distinctly shows, upon the face of it, that the parties contemplated its performance to extend over a greater space of time than one year, the case is within the statute; but that, where the contract is such that the whole may be performed within a year, and there is no express stipulation to the contrary, the statute does not apply."

In Murphy v. O'Sullivan, (1866) 11 Irish Jurist (N. S.) 111, the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Ireland, in a series of careful opinions by Mr. Justice O'Hagan (afterwards Lord Chancellor of Ireland), Baron Fitzgerald; Chief Baron Pigot and Chief Justice Monahan, reviewing the English cases, held

Opinion of the Court.

that under the Irish statute of frauds of 7 Will. III, c. 12, (which followed in this respect the words of the English statute,) an agreement to maintain and clothe a man during his life was not required to be in writing.

In the recent case of McGregor v. McGregor, 21 Q. B. D. 424, (1888) the English Court of Appeal held that a lawful agreement made between husband and wife, in compromise of legal proceedings, by which they agreed to live apart, the husband agreeing to allow the wife a weekly sum for maintenance, and she agreeing to maintain herself and her children, and to indemnify him against any debts contracted by her, was not within the statute. Lord Esher, M. R., thought the true doctrine on the subject was that laid down by Chief Justice Tindal in the passage above quoted from Souch v. Strawbridge. Lord Justice Lindley said: "The provisions of the statute have been construed in a series of decisions from which we cannot depart. The effect of these decisions is that, if the contract can by possibility be performed within the year, the statute does not apply." Lord Justice Bowen said: "There has been a decision which for 200 years has been accepted as the leading case on the subject. In Peter v. Compton, it was held that an agreement that is not to be performed within the space of a year from the making thereof' means, in the statute of frauds, an agreement which appears from its terms to be incapable of performance within the year." And each of the three judges took occasion to express approval of the decision in Murphy v. O'Sullivan, above cited, and to disapprove the opposing decision of Hawkins, J., in Davey v. Shannon, 4 Ex. D. 81.

The cases on this subject in the courts of the several States are generally in accord with the English cases above cited. They are so numerous, and have been so fully collected in Browne on the Statute of Frauds, (5th ed.) c. 13, that we shall refer to but few of them, other. than those cited by counsel in the case at bar.

In Peters v. Westborough, 19 Pick. 364, an agreement to support a girl of twelve years old until she was eighteen was held not to be within the statute. Mr. Justice Wilde, in

Opinion of the Court.

delivering judgment, after quoting Peter v. Compton, Fenton v. Emblers and Boydell v. Drummond, above cited, said: "From these authorities it appears to be settled, that in order to bring a parol agreement within the clause of the statute in question, it must either have been expressly stipulated by the parties, or it must appear to have been so understood by them, that the agreement was not to be performed within a year. And this stipulation or understanding is to be absolute and certain, and not to depend upon any contingency. And this, we think, is the clear meaning of the statute. In the present case, the performance of the plaintiff's agreement with the child's father depended on the contingency of her life. If she had continued in the plaintiff's service, and he had supported her, and she had died within a year after the making of the agreement, it would have been fully performed. And an agreement by parol is not within the statute, when by the happening of any contingency it might be performed within a year."

In many other States, agreements to support a person for life have been held not to be within the statute. Browne on Statute of Frauds, § 276. The decision of the Supreme Court of Tennessee in Deaton v. Tennessee Coal Co., 12 Heiskell, 650, cited by the defendant in error, is opposed to the weight of authority.

In Roberts v. Rockbottom Co., 7 Met. 46, Chief Justice Shaw declared the settled rule to be that "when the contract may, by its terms, be fully performed within the year, it is not void by the statute of frauds, although in some contingencies it may extend beyond a year"; and stated the case then before the court as follows: "The contract between the plaintiff and the company was that they should employ him, and that he should serve them, upon the terms agreed on, five years, or so long as Leforest should continue their agent. This is a contract which might have been fully performed within the year. The legal effect is the same as if it were expressed as an agreement to serve the company so long as Leforest should continue to be their agent, not exceeding five years; though the latter expression shows a little more

Opinion of the Court.

clearly, that the contract might end within a year, if Leforest should quit the agency within that time."

In Blanding v. Sargent, 33 N. H. 239, the court stated the rule, as established by the authorities elsewhere, and therefore properly to be considered as adopted by the legislature of New Hampshire when reënacting the statute, to be that "the statute does not apply to any contract, unless by its express terms or by reasonable construction it is not to be performed, that is, incapable in any event of being performed, within one year from the time it is made"; and that "if by its terms, or by reasonable construction, the contract can be fully performed within a year, although it can only be done by the occurrence of some contingency by no means likely to happen, such as the death of some party or person referred to in the contract, the statute has no application, and no writing is necessary"; and therefore that an agreement by a physician to sell out to another physician hist business in a certain town, and to do no more business there, in consideration of a certain sum to be paid in five years, was not within the statute, because "if the defendant had died within a year from the making of the contract, having kept his agreement while he lived, his contract would have been fully performed." The decisions in other States are to the same effect. Browne on Statute of Frauds, § 277.

In Hinckley v. Southgate, 11 Vermont, 428, cited by the defendant in error, the contract held to be within the statute of frauds was in express terms to carry on a mill for a year from a future day; and the suggestion in the opinion that if the time of performance depends upon a contingency, the test is whether the contingency will probably happen, or may reasonably be expected to happen, within the year, was not necessary to the decision of the case, and cannot stand with the other authorities. Browne on Statute of Frauds, § 279.

In Linscott v. McIntire, 15 Maine, 201, also cited by the defendant in error, an agreement to. sell a farm at the best advantage, and to pay to the plaintiff any sum remaining after refunding the defendant's advances and paying him for his trouble, was held not to be within the statute of frauds;

Opinion of the Court.

Chief Justice Weston saying: "The sale did not happen to be made until a year had expired; but it might have taken place at an earlier period, and there is nothing in the case from which it appears that, in the contemplation of the parties at the time, it was to be delayed beyond a year. This clause of the statute has been limited to cases where, by the express terms of the agreement, the contract was not to be performed within the space of a year. And it has been held to be no objection that it depended on a contingency, which might not and did not happen, until after that time."

In Herrin v. Butters, 20 Maine, 119, likewise cited by the defendant in error, the contract held to be within the statute could not possibly have been performed within the year, for it was to clear eleven acres in three years, one acre to be seeded down the present spring, one acre the next spring, and one acre the spring following, and to receive in consideration thereof all the proceeds of the land, except the two acres first seeded down.

In Broadwell v. Getman, 2 Denio, 87, the Supreme Court of New York stated the rule thus: "Agreements which may be completed within one year are not within the statute; it extends to such only as by their express terms are not to be, and cannot be, carried into full execution until after the expiration of that time." The contract there sued on was an agreement made in January, 1841, by which the defendant agreed to clear a piece of woodland for the plaintiff, and to partly make a fence at one end of it, which the plaintiff was to complete, the whole to be done by the spring of 1842; and the defendant was to have for his compensation the wood and timber, except that used for the fence, and also the crop to be put in by him in the spring of 1842. The court well said: "As this agreement was made in January, 1841, and could not be completely executed until the close of the season of 1842, it was within the statute, and not being in writing and signed, was void. Upon this point it would seem difficult to raise a doubt upon the terms of the statute."

In Pitkin v. Long Island Railroad, 2 Barb. Ch. 221, cited by the defendant in error, a bill in equity to compel a railroad