ULLMAN V. MEYEB. 241 �standing the want of formai notice of the decision, the importer may immediately sue to recover back the duties alleged to have been ille- gally exacted, and the limitation upon his right to do so begins to run at the same time. The argument for the demurrer assumes that it was the intention of congress that the importer should have all of 90 days within which to commence his action. But as, in the great majority of cases, one-third of that period is more than sufficient for such purpose, the remaining 60 days must have been given to cover any possible contingencies, such as the getting or receiving notice of the decision of the secretary. �This action not having been commenced within 90 days from the decision of the secretary, it is barred by lapse of time, and the demur- rer is therefore sustained. ���XJllman V. Meyeb.* �{Oireuit Court, 8. 1). Nm York. January 31, 1882. �1. Statuts op Prauds — Promises to Mabrt. �The provision of the statute of frauda requiring all agreemeats not to be performed within a year to be in writing, applies to promises to marry. The exception in the third section of the statute does not withdraw agreemeats to marry altogether from its operation. �Motion for N^w Trial. �Wallacb, D. J. I am constrained to hold that the defendant was erroneously precluded from the benefit of his defence under the stat- ute of frauds on the trial of the action, and that the construction of the statute, which, upon a hasty reading seemed correct, cannot be maintained. The case turns upon the construction of the statute of frauds, the phraseology of which differs from tl^at of the statute of Charles II. It is stated in Parsons on Contracts, (vol. 3, p. 3,) that although provisions substantially similar have been made by the statutes of this country, in no one state is the English statute exactly copied. �It was alleged in the present case, and the evidence tended to show, that by the terms of the agreement of marriage between the parties the marriage was not to take place until some time after the expiration �•Reported by S. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar. V.10,no.2— 16 ��� �
