It is well settled that the oral agreements invalidated by the statute because not to be performed within a year include those only which cannot be performed within that period. A promise which is not likely to be performed within a year, and which in fact is not performed within a year is not within the statute if at the time the contract is made there is a possibility in law and in fact that full performance such as the parties intended may be completed before the expiration of a year.41

Humble, 154 Ky. 708, 159 S. W. 654; Niles v. Davis, 60 Miss. 760, 752; Washington v. Soris, 73 Miss. 665, 19 So. 485, 55 Am. St. Rep. 555; Barnes v. Brown, 71 N. C. 507; White v. Holly, 91 N. C. 67; Ridley v. McNairy, 2 Humph. 174; Goodloe v. Goodloe, 116 Tenn. 252, 92 8. W. 767, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 703.

40 In O'Herlihy v. Hedges, 1 Sch. & US. 123, 130, Lord Redesdale said: "But this is a contract on which no action at law could be maintained, notwithstanding what Mr. Justice Buller says in one or two cases [Brodie v. St. Paul, 1 Ves. Jr. 326, 333], that part performance takes a case out of the statute, at law as well as in equity. That opinion will be found wrong; and I recollect Mr. Justice Buller, upon being pressed with the consequences of that opinion in case of a demurrer to evidence, being obliged to abandon the position. The ground on which a court of equity goes in oases of part performance is that sort of fraud which is cognizable in equity only." To the same effect, see Cooth v. Jackson, 6 Ves. 12, 39; Quirk v. Bank of Commerce, 242 Fed. 682, 687, 157 C. C. A. 130; Henry v. Wells, 48 Ark. 485, 3 S. W. 637; Eaton v. Whitaker, 18 Conn. 222, 44 Am. Dec. 536; Dougherty v. Catlett, 129 111. 431, 21 N. E. 932;

Chicago Co. v. Davis Co., 142 111. 171, 31 N. E. 438; Leavitt v. Stern, 159 111. 526, 42 N. E. 869; Barickman v. Kuykendall, 6 Blackf. 21, 24; Norton v. Preston, 15 Me. 14, 32 Am. Dec 128; Kidder v. Hunt, 1 Pick. 328, 11 Am. Doc. 183; Adams v. Townsend, 1 Met. 483; Bartlett v. Bartlett, 103 Mich. 293, 61 N. W. 500; Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350, 17 8. W. 978; Lane v. Shackford, 5 N. H. 130, 132; Smith v. Phillips, 69 N. H. 470, 43 Atl. 183; White v. Poole, 74 N. H. 71, 65 Atl. 255; Russell v. Briggs, 165 N. Y. 509, 59 N. E. 303, 53 L. R. A. 556; Davis «. Moore, 9 Rich. 215; Brown v. Pollard, 89 Va. 696, 701, 17 S. E. 6; Kimmins v. Oldham, 27 W. Va. 258. But see contra- Follmer v. Dale, 9 Pa. 83.

41 Smith p. Neale, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 67; Ridley v. Ridley, 34 Beav. 478; McGregor v. McGregor, 21 Q. Ft. D. 424 (overruling Davey v. Shannon, 4 Exch. D. 81); Lavalette v. Riches, 24 T. L. R. 336; Neater v. Diamond Match Co., 143 Fed. 72, 74 C. C. A. 266; American Fine Art Co. v. Simon, 140 Fed. 529, 72 C. C. A. 45; Quirk v. Bank of Commerce, 244 Fed. 682, 157 C. C. A. 130; Heflin v. Milton, 69 Als. 354; Sweet v. Desha Lumber Co., 56 Ark. 629, 20 S. W. 514; Graham v. Joneaboro, etc., R. Co., 111 Ark. 598,

Therefore, a contract of insurance for a term of years to begin within a year, is not within the statute, since by the terms of the contract a contingency or contingencies may occur within the year which will require the full payment of the policy.42 Nor is an oral promise performable on the marriage of the promisee unenforceable,43 nor a promise of performance or forbearance during the life of a specified person,44 nor a promise performable

164 S. W. 729; Buckley v. Continental Gin Co., 113 Ark. 15, 166 S. W. 744; Bonner v. Kimball-Lacy Lumber Co., 114 Ark. 42, 16ft S. W. 242; Bank of Orland v. Finnell, 133 Cal. 475, 65 Pac. 976; Woodall v. Davie-Crosswell Mfg. Co., ft Cot. App. 198, 48 Pac. 670; Clark v. Pendleton, 20 Conn. 495; Series v. Shadow, 5 Dak. 100, 37 N. W. 748; Devalinger p. Maxwell, 4 Penne-wiU, 185, 54 Atl. 684; Young Men's Christian Assoc, v. Eatill, 140 Ga. 291, 78 S. E. 1075, 48 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 783, Ann. Cas. 1914 D. 136; White v. Murt-land, 71 111. 250, 22 Am. Rep. 100; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Ritsher, 196 111. App. 27; Straughan v. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 38 Ind. 185; Durham v. Hiatt, 127 Ind. 514, 26 N. . 401; Sutphen v. Sutpheu, 30 Kails. 510, 2 Pac 100; Aiken v. Noglo, 47 Kara. 96, 27 Pac. 825; Louisville, etc, R. Co. v. Offut, 99 Ky. 427, 36 S. W. 181, 59 Am. St. Rep. 467; Story v. Story, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1731, 1869, 61 8. W. 279, 62 S. W. 865; Whitley v. Whitley's Adm., 26 Ky. L. Rep. 134, 80 S. W. 825; Owensboro Tool Co. v. Moore, 154 Ky. 431, 157 S. W. 1121; Walker p. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 56 Me. 371; Neal p. Parker, 98 Md. 264, 57 Atl. 213; Campbell v. Burnett, 120 Md. 214, 87 Atl. 894; Camig v. Carr, 167 Mass. 644, 48 N. E. 117, 35 L. R. A. 512, 57 Am. St. Rep. 48S; Seribner v. Flagg Mfg. Co., 175 Mass. 536, 56 N. E. 603; Collins p. Snow, 218 Maes. 542, 106 N. E. 148; Elwell v. State Mut. L. Aesur. Co., 230 Mass. 248, 119 N. E. 7S4; Smalley v. Mitchell, 110 Mich. 650,68 N. W. 978; Wiebeler v. Milwaukee Ins. Co,, 30 Minn. 464, 16 N. W. 363; Stitt v. Rat Portage Co., 98 Minn. St, 107 N. W. 824; Green v. Whaley, 371 Mo. 636, 1973. W. 355; Boggs v. Pacific Laundry Co., 86 Mo. App. 616;

Simmons v. Simmons, 95 Neb. 607, 146 N. W. 951; Gault v. Brown, 48 N. H. 183; Burgesser v. Wendel, 73 N. J. L. 286, 62 Atl. 994; Smith v. Baich (N. J. L.), 105 Atl. 17; Blake v. Voigt, 134 N. Y. 69, 31 N. E. 256, 30 Am. St. Rep. 622; Jones v. Pouch, 41 Ohio St. 146; Nonamaker p. Amos,

73 Omo St. 163, 76 N. E. 949, 4 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 980, 112 Am. St. Rep. 708; Hodges v. Richmond Mfg. Co., 9 R. I. 482; Grace v. West Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 165 S. W. 519; Adair v. Stalling (Tex. Civ. App.), 166 S. W. 140; Seddon v. Rosenbaum, 85 Va. 928, 9 S. E. 326, 3 L. R. A. 337; Reek-ley v. Zenn, 74 W. Va. 43, 81 S. E. 565; McClanahan v. Otto Mannet Ac. Co.,

74 W. Va. 543, 82 8. E. 752; Rua v. Bowyer Smokeless Coal Co. (W. Va.), 99 S. E. 213. See also cases in this section passim. The leading case is Warner v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 164 U. S. 418,17 S. Ct. 147, 41 L. Ed. 495, where the defendant orally promised to maintain a switch for the plaintiff "as long as he needed it." The switch was maintained for thirteen years and then abolished. The railway company was held liable. Somewhat similar in their facta are Graham v. Jonesboro, etc., R. Co., 111 Ark. 598, 164 & W. 729; Frankfort, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 153 Ky. 534, 156 S. W. 103; Thomas v. South Haven, etc, Co., 138 Mich. 50, 100 N. W. 1009. A few decisions hold that a contract which the parties do not expect to be performed within a year is within the statute, regardless of other possibilities. Izard v. Middletoo, 1 Degauss. 116; Jones v. McMichael, 12 Rich. L. 176 (see Bates-burg Cotton Oil Co. v. Jones, 96 S. C. 148, 80 S. E. 86). See also - Carney v. Mosher, 97 Mich. 5S4,56 N. W. 935. In Warren Chemical & Mfg. Co. a.