
    M. H. LASKO v. EXCEL GARMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
    
    February 19, 1926.
    No. 25,176.
    Finding sustained.
    1. After working hours in the evening of December 27, 1922, defendant made an oral contract of employment with plaintiff for one year. The year was to commence at once — that date. Plaintiff reported for work on the following morning. Held that the year would end at the close of working hours on December 27, 1923, and the contract would be performed within one year from the making thereof.
    Employe discharged without cause.
    2. The record sustains the finding that the employe was discharged without cause.
    Appeal and Error, 4 C. J. p. 884 n. 37.
    Frauds, Statute of, 27 C. J. p. 174 n. 64.
    Defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of plaintiff ordered by C. L. Smith, J., in an action in the municipal court of Minneapolis.
    Affirmed.
    
      8. Friedman and Joseph Ohase, for appellant.
    
      8am J. Levy, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 207 N. W. 319.
    
   WlI/SON, C. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment. Plaintiff was employed by defendant. He was discharged on July 21, 1923. Plaintiff claims he was employed for one year and was wrongfully discharged. De- - fendant denies employment for one year, and says if such was the agreement it was void under the statute of frauds in that it was not to be performed within one year from the making thereof, and that plaintiff was discharged for cause.

The oral contract of employment was made on the evening of December 27, 1922. Plaintiff testified the year was to commence at once — that date. The talk was in the evening after 'working hours on the twenty-seventh of December and he reported for work on the following morning. The year would end at the close of working hours on the twenty-seventh of December a year hence. The contract would he performed within one year from the making of the agreement, as required by G-. S. 1928, § 8456. There is other evidence in the case. The findings of the trial court that the contract was made on December 27, 1922, for the term of one year commencing on that date are supported by the evidence.

The finding that the discharge was without cause is a Conclusion from contradictory testimony and amply supported by the evidence.

Affirmed.  