{
  "id": 1887721,
  "name": "Henry & Bro. v. Wells",
  "name_abbreviation": "Henry & Bro. v. Wells",
  "decision_date": "1886-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "485",
  "last_page": "486",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "48 Ark. 485"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "26 Ga., 551",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ga.",
      "case_ids": [
        267225
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ga/26/0551-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 R. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "R.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ala., 351",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        5481377
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/36/0351-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Mo., 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo.",
      "case_ids": [
        936953
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mo/55/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ark., 80",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1890505
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/46/0080-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ark., 80",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1890505
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/46/0080-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 1873,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.4083287136514855e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8778374723777332
    },
    "sha256": "cb5a190518151aa3227f3a9dc1e09672506ed960952ee0e2d3911d71f02e8784",
    "simhash": "1:b9bbe6fcfc2df92b",
    "word_count": 339
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:09.721792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry & Bro. v. Wells."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nThe complaint stated that the defendants had employed the plaintiff as a bar-tender for the whole of the year 1884, but had, on the 1st day of May, in that year, discharged him without cause, paying his wages only to that date. The prayer was for a recovery of wages for the remaining months. The answer, among other defenses, set up the statute of frauds. The proof was that the contract was made in November, 1888, and according to the plaintiff\u2019s version, was to include the remainder of that year and the year following, and that it was not manifested by any writing. The court charged, in substance, that the plaintiff\u2019s entry upon the service and readiness to perform took the case out of the statute. And the plaintiff had a verdict and judgment.\nVerbal contracts are sometimes enforced in equity, especially for the purchase of land, where possession has been taken and improvements made on the faith of them. But partial execution has no effect at law to take any case out of the provisions of the statute. JBroion on Statute of Frauds, see. 451, 415 Ed.\nThis case is governed by Meyer v. Roberts, 46 Ark., 80.\nReversed for new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wells \u00a3 Williamson, for appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry & Bro. v. Wells.\nStatute oe Prauds : Parol contract. Part performance.\nPart performance of a parol contract, which the statute of frauds requires to he in writing, has no effect at law to take a case out of the provisions of the statute.\nAPPEAL from Drew Circuit Court.\nHon. J. M. Bradley, Judge.\nWells \u00a3 Williamson, for appellants.\n1. The contract being a verbal one, and not to be performed within a year, was within the statute of frauds, and void. . Mansf. Dig., sec. 337l,subdivis. 6; Meyer v. Roberts, 46 Ark., 80; 1 Parsons on Gont., 529; Waite\u2019s Act\u2022 and Def., vol. 7,p. 43; 55 Mo., 97; 36 Ala., 351; 13 R. 1., 480; 26 Ga., 551; 2 Helt{N. Y.) 116; 22 III, 248.\n2. The verdict is contrary to the evidence."
  },
  "file_name": "0485-01",
  "first_page_order": 489,
  "last_page_order": 490
}