general rule being that where contracts are made invalid when entered into on Sunday, no action will lie by a party thereto, either to enforce it or to escape from its consequences, or for any deceit practiced in procuring the contract.' Therefore a person cannot recover for money loaned to another on Sunday; nor a livery-stable keeper for the 2 would still be necessary for the plaintiff, in proving his case, to show his own illegal act in making the contract at first: Day v. McAllister, and Pope v. Linn, above cited; Ladd v. Rogers, 11 Allen, 209; Bradley v. Rea, 14 Allen, 20. Upon the same principle, if the contract has been executed by the illegal act of both parties on the Lord's day, the law will not assist either to avoid the effect of his own unlawful act. Thus if the amount of a pre-existing debt has been paid and received on Sunday, the law will neither assist the debtor to recover back the money, nor the creditor, while retaining the amount so paid, to treat the payment as a nullity, and enforce payment over again: White v. Buss, 3 Cush. 448, 450; Mills v. Western Bank, 10 Cush. 22; Johnson v. Willis, 7 Gray, 164. If a chattel has been delivered by the owner to another person on the Lord's day by way of bailment or pledge, the latter may retain it for the special purpose for which he received it; or, if it has been delivered to him on the Lord's day by way of sale or exchange, it cannot, at least if he has at the same time paid or delivered the consideration on his part, be recovered back at all: Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 Mees. & W. 270; King v. Green, 6 Allen, 139; Myers v. Meinrath, 101 Mass. 366; Horton v. Buffington, 105 Mass. 399; Smith v. Bean, 15 N. H. 577; Greene v. Godfrey, 44 Me. 25. If a chattel has been sold and delivered on the Lord's day without payment of the price, the seller cannot recover either the price or the value; not the price agreed on that day, because the agreement is illegal; not the value, because, whether the property is deemed to have passed to the defendant, or to be held by him without right, there is no ground upon which a promise to pay 66 for it can be implied: Simpson v. Nicholls, 3 Mees. & W. 240; 5 Mees. & W. 702, note; 3 Mees. & W., Am. ed., 244, note; Ladd v. Rogers, 11 Allen, 209." Making a contract is not common labor": Horacek v. Keebler, 5 Neb. 355; or “labor " that disturbs the peace and good order of society: Richmond v. Moore, 107 Ill. 429; 47 Am. Rep. 445. Executing a mortgage is not the exercise of an act the "ordinary calling of the citizen: Hellams v. Abercrombie, 15 S. C. 110; 40 Am. Rep. 684. Procuring signatures of tax-payers to a petition to a board of supervisors to issue railroad-aid bonds is "business": De Forth v. R. R. Co., 52 Wis. 320; 38 Am. Rep. 737. So is lending money to be repaid on demand: Troewert v. Decker, 51 Wis. 46; 37 Am. Rep. 808. Robeson v. French, 12 Met. 24; 45 Am. Dec. 236; Pattee v. Greeley, 13 Met. 289; Gregg v. Wyman. 4 Cush. 325; Myers v. Meinrath, 101 Mass. 369; Woodman v. Hubbard, 25 N. H. 67; 57 Am. Dec. 310; Hazard v. Day, 14 Allen, 487; 92 Am. Dec. 790. No action lies for fraudulent representations inducing to a contract made on Sunday, although the representations were criminal: Gunderson v. Richardson, 56 Iowa, 56; 41 Am. Rep. 81. But one who on Sunday procures goods by false representations cannot on that ground escape liability from arrest in a civil action, although the law prohibits the sale of that class of goods on Sunday: O'Shea v. Kohn, 33 Hun, 114. The seller of a horse on Sunday can recover it if he was fraudulently made drunk by the buyer: Block v. McMurry, 56 Miss. 217; 31 Am. Rep. 357. 2 Meader v. White, 66 Me. 90; 22 Am. Rep. 551. 5 hire of a horse let on Sunday. So these are void: A warranty made on a sale or exchange of horses on Sunday; a contract of insurance made on that day; a promissory note made and delivered on that day; or a deed; or an offer to rescind a contract; or an exchange 6 of property; or a demand made for the delivery of an article of merchandise; or a demand of any kind; or a contract for the publication of an advertisement in a newspaper to be published, sold, and distributed on Sunday; or a contract to make a balloon ascension upon Sunday, from a garden open to the public on payment of admission fees; " or a contract to run a steamboat upon Sundays, partly in Michigan and partly in Canadian waters.12 14 10 8 9 A contract which could not be lawfully made on Sunday cannot, if lawfully made, be rescinded on that day.13 A promise to repay money borrowed on the Lord's day, whether in writing, verbal, or implied, cannot be enforced. A bailee's breach of his Sunday contract for the exercise of care in the Sunday use of the thing bailed is not actionable.15 A partial payment upon a note to the payee, who is a merchant, will not take the case out of the statute of limitations when made on Sunday.16 Although a contract of sale on Sunday is void, yet the seller cannot recover the chattels sold, nor damages for their Welden v. Chappel, 8 R. I. 230; Stewart v. Davis, 31 Ark. 518; 25 Am. Rep. 576. Finley v. Quirk, 9 Minn. 194; 86 Am. Dec. 93; Murphy v. Simpson, 14 B. Mon. 337; Bradley v. Rea, 14 Allen, 20; Lyon v. Strong, 6 Vt. 219. Heller v. Crawford, 37 Ind. 279. O'Donnell v. Sweeney, 5 Ala. 467; 39 Am. Dec. 337; Allen v. Deming, 14 N. H. 133; 40 Am. Dec. 179; Morgan v. Bailey, 59 Ga. 683. 'Love v. Wells, 25 Ind. 503; 87 Am. Dec. 375. • Merritt v. Robinson, 35 Ark. 483. Myers v. Meinrath, 101 Mass. 366; 3 Am. Rep. 368. value. Replevin lies for a horse sold and delivered on Sunday, although the contract was ratified on a weekday.2 The following have been held not within the statute, and therefore not void, viz.: A contract between a farmer and a laborer for a year's hire, made on Sunday; a promise by an attorney, acting for his client, to be responsible for part of the debt owing by him; an agreement with a farmer to have a mare covered by a stallion on Sunday;" executing a will or performing a marriage; a tender of 1 Block v. McMurry, 56 Miss. 217; 31 Am. Rep. 357. 2 Winfield v. Dodge, 45 Mich. 355; 40 Am. Rep. 476. 3 R. v. Whitnash, 7 Barn. & C. 596. Peate v. Dickens, 1 Cromp. M. & R. 422. This and the next case went on the construction of the words "ordinary calling" in the English statute. Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 Mees. & W. 270. Bennett v. Brooks, 9 Allen, 118, the court saying: "A just interpretation of the statutes for the due observance of the Lord's day does not require us to hold that the execution of a will on that day is an act within the implied prohibition of the law. It is a mistake to suppose that the legislature intended to forbid or restrain every act of a secular or temporal nature not coming within the exception in the statute, so that on the day set apart for religious services and observances nothing else could be done, unless it might be properly designated as a charitable or necessary act. The purpose of the statute is only to prevent the carrying on of the usual and ordinary callings and occupations of men by which they gain a livelihood or acquire property, and the doing of acts such as usually belong to or are connected with worldly affairs and the common transactions of business. Many acts of a secular or temporal nature may be done without interfering essentially with the due observance of the Lord's day or causing injury to individuals (in the words of the preamble already cited) as members of a Christian society,' cr 6 the creating 'disturbance to well-disposed chattels made on Sunday, the day of performance following on that day.' An executed contract of sale, although made on Sunday, is not void, either between the parties thereto or third persons.2 The purchaser of property delivered to him without payment, under a contract made on Sunday, may maintain replevin for it if the seller retakes it without his consent, without paying or offering to pay. Sunday begins at twelve o'clock at night and ends in twenty-four hours thereafter, except in Connecticut, where it is from sunset on Saturday to sunset on Sunday." § 2412. Contracts Partly Executed on Sunday. — Contracts not finally executed on Sunday are not void because some of the terms may have been agreed to on that day;" as an agreement made on Sunday, but executed and carried into effect on a week-day. Therefore the following have been held good: A note signed on Sunday, but not delivered until a week-day; a replevin bond signed on Sunday, but not delivered until a week-day; a bond for costs signed on Sunday, but filed on another day;1o a sale reason applies with still greater force to the execution of a will on the sabbath. It is not within the prohibition implied from the penalty imposed by the statute." In Gangwere's Estate, 14 Pa. St. 417, 53 Am. Dec. 554, the court was equally divided on the question whether a marriage contract executed on Sunday was legal or not. 10 the contract was made on Sunday or on a week-day is a question for the jury: Id.); Beitenman's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 183; Dickinson v. Richmond, 97 Mass. 45; Butler v. Lee, 11 Ala. 885; 46 Am. Dec. 231. But see Allen v. Deming, 14 N. H. 133; 40 Am. Dec. 179; Foreman v. All, 55 Pa. St. 325; Bradley v. Rea, 14 Allen, 20. 7 Taylor v. Young, 61 Wis. 314. 8 Amis . Kyle, 2 Yerg. 31; 24 Am. Dec. 463. 2 Moore v. Kendall, 2 Pinn. 99; 1 Chand. 33; 52 Am. Dec. 145. 3 Kinney . McDermot, 55 Iowa, 674; 39 Am. Rep. 191. Kilgour v. Miles, Gill & J. 268; Huidekoper v. Cotton, 3 Watts, 56. Finn v. Donahue, 35 Conn. 216. Merrill v. Downs, 41 N. H. 72; Bradley v. Rea, 103 Mass. 188; 4 Am. Rep. 524; Stackpole r. Symonds, 23 N. H. 227; Mosely v. Van Hooser, 6 Lea, 286; 40 Am. Rep. 37; Uhler v. Applegate, 26 Pa. St. 140 (whether King v. Fleming, 72 Ill. 21; 22 Am. Rep. 131; Dohoney v. Dohoney, 7 Bush, 217; Hilton v. Houghton, 35 Me. 143; Hill v. Dunham, 7 Gray, 543; Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358; Stacy v. Kemp, 97 Mass. 166; Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 Vt. 379; 46 Am. Dec. 157; Burns v. Moore, 76 Ala. 339; 52 Am. Rep. 332; Bill v. Mabin, 69 Iowa, 408. Prather v. Harlan, 6 Bush, 185. 10 Hall v. Parker, 37 Mich. 590; 26 Am. Rep. 540. And see Com. v. Kendig, 2 Pa. St. 448. of goods agreed upon on Sunday, and the goods selected and set apart, the delivery being made on Monday;1 a contract for an exchange of horses made on Saturday including the discharge of a debt due from one of the parties to the other, the purchaser of the horse taking possession on Sunday; a request for service made on the Lord's day, but not accepted on that day;3 a letter, accepting a prior proposal, written on Saturday, left by the writer on Sunday, with request to carry it to the post-office on Monday;* a request to perform services by a letter written and delivered on Sunday, there being no acceptance on that day of the terms of such letter;5 a contract for the sale of land made on a week-day, and a note for the purchase-money executed on Sunday; a contract made on Sunday by an agent without authority and without the knowledge of his principal, but ratified by the principal on a week-day; a contract for labor entered into on the sabbath, the contract being afterwards performed by the laborer; an account stated for liquor sold on Sunday, provided the account was not stated on Sunday; a bill of sale of personal property, drawn and executed on Monday, an account of stock having been taken on Sunday;10 a contract made on Sunday for the sale of land, where the vendor demands the purchase-money on a week-day." § 2413. Negotiable Paper - Bona Fide Holder. While negotiable paper drawn, delivered, and accepted on Sunday is void between the parties, yet if it is falsely dated as of another day, and comes to the hands of an innocent holder, who takes it for value without notice, |