Offeman

Appellant has filed a petition for a rehearing in which it is urged that a contract which is unenforceable, because within the statute of frauds, is not admissible in evidence in an action of quantum meruit as tending to prove the reasonable value of services rendered. Reliance is placed on the provision of section 1973 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is herein italicized as follows: "In the following cases the agreement is invalid, unless the same or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or his agent. Evidence, therefore, of the agreement, cannot be received without the writing or secondary evidence of its contents: 1. An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof. . . ." The heading of chapter VI, title II, part IV, in which section 1973 appears is "Indispensable Evidence." The first section in the chapter, 1967, provides: "The law makes certain evidence necessary to the validity of particular acts, or the proof of particular facts." Section 1968 provides that "perjury and treason must be proved by testimony of more than one witness." Section 1969 provides: "A last will and…

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 3 This is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment entered in the trial court in favor of the plaintiff. The complaint alleges: "That on or about February 14th, 1922, defendant, through its duly authorized agents, entered into a contract with plaintiff, whereby, in consideration that plaintiff immediately dispose of and/or give up his household goods and/or personal effects in and about the City of New York and dispose of his interest in the Reol Productions, Inc., controlled by plaintiff, at whatever loss sustained by plaintiff, by disposing of, or giving up his household goods and/or personal effects, and said business, and become General Manager of Robertson-Cole Studios, Inc., in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, for a period of three years, beginning February 14th, 1922, and ending February 14th, 1925, defendant would compensate plaintiff as follows: "(1) Pay to plaintiff the sum of $500.00 per week, payable at the end of each and every week, for and during said entire period beginning February 4th, 1922, to and including…