18 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



not be enforced (see Snelling v. Lord Hunting field, 1880, 1 

 C. M. & E. 20). 



Where there is a contract to serve for one year, the service 

 to commence on the day next after that on which the contract 

 is made, this is not a contract which is not to be performed 

 within a year (Smith v. Gold Coast and Ashanti Explorers, Ltd., 

 1903, 1 K. B. 538). In that case, at the board meeting of a 

 company held on December 6, the plaintiff was virtually 

 engaged to act as solicitor to the company for a year as from 

 December 7. It was held that this was a valid contract, and 

 that it need not be in writing. Applying these principles, it 

 is obvious that in the ordinary case of an engineer taking an 

 appointment at a yearly salary, without the duration of the 

 employment being mentioned, the agreement must be put 

 into writing. It should be stamped with a Qd. stamp on the 

 date of execution, or within seven days thereafter. Otherwise, 

 should it ever have to be produced in court, heavy penalties 

 might have to be paid. 



4. The written agreement what it must contain. The 

 note in writing must embody all the terms of the agreement, 

 or it must be connected with some other document which does. 

 Several documents, if sufficiently connected together, will 

 constitute a good memorandum within the statute (Jackson 

 v. Lowe, 1822, 1 Bing. 9). Thus a series of letters passing 

 between the parties may be sufficient. Again, it has been 

 decided that an envelope, and a letter which is shown by 

 evidence to have been enclosed in it, are so connected together 

 that the envelope may be used to supply the name of one of 

 the parties to a memorandum in writing within the meaning 

 of the statute (Pearce v. Gardner, 1897, 1 Q. B. 688). The 

 contract must, of course, contain the names of the employer 

 and the engineer (see Champion v. Plummer, 1805, 1 Bos. & 

 P. 252). It must also set forth the consideration, i.e., the 

 salary at which the servant is engaged (Wain v. Warlters, 

 1804, 5 East, 10). 



5. What signature necessary. The note or memorandum 

 need not be signed by both parties to the contract. The signa- 

 ture of the party to be charged is quite sufficient (Laythoarp 

 v. Bryant, 1836, 2 Bing. N. C. 735). It is immaterial where 

 the signature is placed on the document, so long as it is so 



