A contract by its terms to be performed "inside of a year" is clearly not within the statute.1 If the time within which performance may be made is longer than one year, the principles applied to this subject by most courts would exclude such a contract from the statute, since by its terms it may be performed within the year. Some courts so hold,2 though some courts take

7 Morgan v. Wickliffe, 110 Ky. 215; 61 S. W. 13; rehearing denied, 61 S. W. 1017.

8 Kelley v. Thompson, 175 Mass. 427; 56 N. E. 713. (A promise to deliver milk at a reduced price, to apply on a note due in two years, application to be made when note is due.)

9 Dietrich v. Hoefelmeir, 128 Mich. 145; 87 X. W. 111. (A promise by A to deliver to B a certain number of sheep, and by B to redeliver to A twice that number in four years.)

10 Buhl v. Stevens, 84 Fed. 922.

11 Green v. Steel Co., 75 Md. 109; 23 Atl. 139.

12Veazie v. Morse, 67 Minn. 100; 69 X. W. 637.

13 Peck v. Machine Co., 196 III 295; 63 X. E. 731; Hanson v. Gun derson, 95 Wis. 613; 70 X. W. 827.

14 Bastin Telephone Co. v. Telephone Co., - Ky. -; 77 S. W. 702.

15 Eikelman v. Perdew, 140 Cal. 687; 74 Pac. 291.

1Denn v. Peters, 36 Or. 486; 59 Pac. 1109.

2 Lewis v. Tapman, 90 Md. 294; the opposite view.3 A contract made on November fourteenth to charter a tug for the ensuing season was held not within the statute, where the season began April first and ended December fifth.4