This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
This clause of the statute classifies contracts according to the time of performance. By the weight of authority contracts of every kind of subject-matter may be included within its terms.
In some jurisdictions, however, contracts concerning certain classes of subject-matter are not looked upon as being within this clause. Since contracts for the sale of an interest in realty are provided for in another section of this statute, the question has arisen whether they may also fall within the section affecting contracts not to be performed within the year, or whether the clause affecting contracts concerning realty is exclusive. The weight of authority is that such contracts may fall within the clause affecting contracts not to be performed within the year.1' In New York a statute authorizing oral leases for a year, is held to take contracts for realty out of the operation of the clause affecting contracts not to be performed within the year.2 Under substantially similar statutes other courts have reached an opposite conclusion.3
In some jurisdictions a contract to marry is held not to be within the statute,4 but the weight of authority is opposed to this view.5
1Bain v. McDonald, 111 Ala. 269; 20 So. 77; Wickson v. Mfg. Co., 128 Cal. 15G; 79 Am. St. Rep. 36; 49 L. R. A. 141; 60 Pac. 764; Comstock v. Ward, 22 111. 248; Cooney v. Murray, 45 111. App. 463; Wolf v. Dozer, 22 Kan. 436; Delano v. Montague, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 42; Engler v. Schneider, 66 Minn. 388; 69 N. W. 139; Johnson v. Albertson, 51 Minn. 333; 53 N. W. 642; Jellett v. Rhode, 43 Minn. 166; 7 L. R. A. 671; 45 N. W. 13; McCroy v. Toney, 66 Miss. 233; 2 L. R. A. 847; 5 So. 392; White v. Holland, 17 Or. 3; 3 Pac. 573; Pulse v. Hamer, 8 Or.
251; Whiting v. Opera House Co., 88 Pa. St. 100.
2 Ward v. Hasbrouck, 169 N. Y. 407; 62 N. E. 434; Becar v. Flues, 64 N. Y. 518; Young v. Dake, 5 N. Y. 463; 55 Am. Dec. 356. A similar view seems to be held in Indiana. Huffman v. Starks, 31 Ind. 474; and in Michigan, Whiting v. Ohlert, 52 Mich. 462; 50 Am. Rep. 265; 18 N. W. 219; and in New Mexico, Childers v. Talbott, 4 N. M. 336; 16 Pac. 275.
3 Bain v. McDonald, 111 Ala. 269; 20 So. 77; Wickson v. Mfg. Co., 128 Cal. 156; 79 Am. St. Rep. 36; 49 L. R. A. 141; 60 Pac. 764.