45 Frost v. Tarr, 53 Ind. 390; Riddle v. Backus, 38 Ia. 81; Heery v. Reed, 80 Kans. 380, 102 Pac. 846; McDaniel v. Hutcherson, 136 Ky. 412, 124 S. W. 384; Sword v. Keith, 31 Mich. 247; Jilson v. Gilbert, 26 Wis. 637, 7 Am. Rep. 100.

46 Anon. Sulk. 280 (on the completion of a voyage); Lavalette v. Riches, 24 T. L. Rep. 336 (on the sale of a patent); Young Men's Christian Assoc. v. Estill, 140 Ga. 291, 78 S. E. 1075 (as soon as work begins on a projected structure); McConahey v. Griffey, 82 Ia. 564, 48 N. W. 983 (when the promisor regained his health); Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Offut, 99 Ky. 427, 36 S. W. 181, 59 Am. St. Rep. 467 (as long as he does faithful and honest promise of permanent personal performance is in legal effect a promise of performance for life, and therefore not within the statute; 47 and the same principle has been applied to promises in terms of unlimited duration made by or to a corporation when performance of the promise is by the nature thereof limited to the life of the corporation or the continuance of its business.48 On the other hand, a promise, the performance of which is to continue for a fixed period, exceeding a year from the making of the contract, or is not to end until the expiration of such a period, must be in writing.49 Thus a contract to work); Yellow Poplar Lumber Co. v. Rule, 106 Ky. 455, 50 S. W. 685 (so long Eta defendant wan engaged in a certain business); H. J. McGrath Co. v. Marchant, 117 Md. 472, 83 Atl. 912 (to serve for a term exceeding a year provided the employer continued so long in business); Sax v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 125 Mich. 252, 84 N. W. 314 (as long as his services are satisfactory); Drew v. Billings-Drew Co., 132 Mich. 65, 92 N. W. 774 (until a lessor could obtain another tenant); DeLand v. Hall, 134 Mich. 381, 96 N. W. 449 (promise made Nov. 14th to charter a tug until the end of the ensuing navigation season, which did not in fact end until Dec. 5th of the following year); Harrington v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. App. 223 (as long as he shall properly do his work); Carter White Lead Co. v. Kinlin, 47 Neb. 409, 66 N. W. 536 (as long as works are kept running); Greene v. Harris, 9 R. I. 401 (as long as parties are mutually satisfied); Huggins v. Carey (Tex. Civ. App.), 149 8. W. 390 (as soon as plaintiff could have a suitable house erected and wind up his business). See also McGregor v. McGregor, 21 Q B. D. 424; Osment v. McElrath, 68 Cat. 466, 9 Pac 731, 58 Am. Rep. 17; Burden v. Luaas, 19 Ky. 1581, 44 S. W. 86; Caraig v. Carr, 167 Mass. 544, 46 N. E. 117, 35 L. R. A. 512, 57 Am. St. Rep. 488; Drew v. Wiswall, 183 Mass. 554, 67 N. E. 666;

Jackson v. Higgins, 70 N. H. 637, 49 Atl. 574.

47Lyon v. King, 11 Met. (Mass.) 411, 45 Am. Dec. 219; Carnig v. Carr, 167 Mam. 544,46 N. E. 117, 35 L. R, A. 512, 57 Am. St. Rep. 488; Zanturjian v. Boomariian, 25 R. I. 151, 55 All 199; Blanchard v. Weeks, 34 Vt. 589. And where a contract of unlimited duration is construed as a contract from year to year, beginning at once, this contract also is not within the statute. Smith & Egge Mfg. Co. v. Webster, 87 Conn. 74, 86 Atl. 763.

48 In Talmadge v. Railroad Company, 13 Barb. 493, an agreement by the plaintiff to fence along the line of the defendant's road was held not within the statute, and the case is supported by Browne (Stat. Frauds, Sec.273a), on the ground, not taken by the court, "that the duration of the plaintiffs promise was obviously limited by the duration of the circumstances of the parties leading to the malting of it." So in Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 96 Va. 670, 32 S. E. 787, the court upheld an oral agreement between two railroads to share the expense of maintaining a watchman at the crossing of their tracks, though the agreement was in terras unlimited as to time.

49Mott J. Ward Co. v. Goelet, 230 Fed. 979, 145 C. C. A. 173 (contract involving performance of lease extending more than a year); Morris v. Peckserve for a period extending more than a year beyond the time of making the agreement is uniformly held within the statute.50 ham, 51 Conn. 128 (contract of partnership to continue more than a year); Garber v. Goldstein, 92 Conn. 226, 102 Atl. 606 (contract of lease for more than a year); Radomalti v. E. R. Stege Brewery, 258 111. 325, 101 N. E. 73 (promise to pay 60 cts. for every barrel of beer sold by a saloon during a lease of three years); Lowman v. Sheets, 124 Ind. 416, 24 N. E. 361, 7 L.R. A. 784 (contract to share expenses of keeping mares for four years); Kel-ley v. Thompson, 175 Mass. 427, 66 N. E. 713 (promise to apply a discount on a note payable in two years, when the note was Bottled); Cooperative Tel. Co. p. Katus, 140 Mich. 367, 103 N. W. 814, 112 Am. St. Rep. 414 (contract to rent a telephone for three years); Miles v. Shrove, 179 Mich. 671,146 N. W. 374 (a parol agreement by a lessee for a term of five years to pay an increased rental); Keller p. Mayer Fertiliser Co., 163 Mo. App. 120, 132 S. W. 314 (a contract to buy and sell for a period exceeding a year all of certain goods which the seller might accumulate); Reynolds v. First Nat. Bank, 62 Neb. 747, 87 N. W. 912 (a contract to save harmless the surety on a bond, the obligation of which extended beyond a year); Clement p. Rowe, 33 S. Dak. 499, 146 N. W. 700 (promise performable if after two years a corporation had not paid dividends); Crenshaw v. Bishop (Tex. Civ. App.), 143 S. W. 284 (agreement to care for and breed stock for three years on shares); Spokane Canal Co. v. Coffman, 61 Wash. 367, 112 Pac. 383 (agreement to cultivate fruit trees for five years). It is immaterial that the period is not stated in words, if plainly indicated. Thus a contract to deliver all the logs on a piece, containing about 90,000, at the rate of 200 a day is within the statute. Edwards v. Farve, 110 Miss. 864, 71 So. 12.

50 Britain v. Rossiter, 11 Q. B. D. 123; Smith v. Gold Coast Explorers, [1903] 1 K. B. 538; Oak Leaf Mill Co. p. Cooper, 103 Ark. 79, 146 S. W. 130; Edgar Bros. Co. v. Schmeiser Mfg. Co., 33 Cal. App. 667, 166 Pac. 366; School District v. Johnson, 26 Colo. App. 433, 143 Fac. 264; Grant v. New Departure Mfg. Co., 85 Conn. 421, 83 Atl. 212; Kelly p. Terrell, 26 Ga, 551; Peck v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co., 196 111. 296, 63 N. E. 731; Smith v. Theobald, 86 Ky. 141, 5 S. W. 394; Tuttle v. Swett, 31 Me. 555; Hearne v. Chadbourne, 65 Me. 302; Bernier v. Cabot Mfg. Co., 71 Me. 606, 36 Am. Rep. 343; Wilhelm v. Hardman, 13 Md. 140; Bill v. Hooper, 1 Gray, 131; Freeman p. Fobs, 146 Mass. 361, 14 N. E. 141,1 Am. St. Rep. 467; Carroll v. Palmer Mfg. Co., 181 Mich. 280, 148 N. W. 390; Lally v. Crookston Lumber Co., 86 Minn. 257, 88 N. W. 846; Biest v. Versteeg Shoe Co., 97 Mo. App. 137, 70 S. W. 1081; Marks v. Davis, 72 Mo. App. 657; Kansas City R. Co. v. Coulee, 43 Neb. 121, 61 N. W. 111; Emery v. Smith, 46 N. H. 151; Mc-Elroy v. Ludlum, 32 N. J. Eq. 828; Marks v. Cowdin, 226 N. Y. 138, 123 N. E. 139; Townsend v. Minford, 48 Hun, 617, 1 N. Y. S. 565; Franco v. Caruso, 168 N. Y. S. 761; Hillhouse v. Jennings, 60 8. C. 373, 38 S. E. 599; Milan p. Rio Grande, etc, R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 166; Hinckley v, Southgate, 11 Vt. 428; Lee's Adm. v. Hill, 87 Vs.. 497, 12 S. E. 1052; Union Savings etc. Co. v. Krumm, 88 Wash. 20, 162 Pac. 681; Chase p. Hinkley, 126 Wis. 75, 106 N. W. 230, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 738, 110 Am. St. Rep. 896. See also Harris v. Porter, 2 Harr. 27; Doyle v. Dixon, 97 Mass. 208, 93 Am. Dec. 80.

And an oral promise of permanent performance, not personal in character and, therefore, not terminable by the death of the promisor, or his cessation of business is equally obnoxious.51 An oral contract which is capable of performance within a year is not invalidated by the fact that a later agreement between the parties made in furtherance of the first cannot be performed within that time.52