Same - Incomplete Transaetions

The fact that negotiations are carried on, and the terms of a contract agreed upon, on Sunday, where the contract is not really made until a week day, does not render the contract illegal.61 A promissory note, for instance, or a deed, though written and signed on Sunday, is valid if delivered on Monday, since it does not take effect until delivery;62 and a sale of goods, though the negotiations

57 McGrath v. Merwin, 112 Mass. 467, 17 Am. Rep. 119. And see, to the same effect, Hamilton v. Austin, 62 N. H. 575. Contra, Hennersdorf v. State, 25 Tex. App. 597, 8 S. W. 926, 8 Am. St Rep. 448. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 7; Cent. Dig. §§ 14-20.

58 HANDY v. ST. PAUL GLOBE PUB. CO., 41 Minn. 188, 42 N. W. 872, 4 L. R. A. 466, 16 Am. St. Rep. 695, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 227 (publishing newspaper). See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 7; Cent. Dig. §§ 14-20.

59 Church subscriptions made on Sunday are enforceable, see Allen v. Duffle, 43 Mich. 1, 4 N. W. 427, 38 Am. Rep. 159; Bryan v. Watson, 127 Ind. 42, 26 N. E. 666, 11 L. R. A. 63; Dale v. Knepp, 98 Pa. 389, 38 Am. Rep. 165, note, 42 Am. Rep. 624; Hodges v. Nalty, 113 Wis. 567, 89 N. W. 535. But see Catlett v. Trustees, 62 Ind. 365, 30 Am. Rep. 197. Where a carriage is hired on Sunday, the contract is not made legal "because the hirer did a kind act by conveying a young lady home who had been 'to meeting' during the day." Tillock v. Webb, 56 Me. 100. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 7; Cent. Dig. §§ U-20.

60 Buck v. City of Biddeford, 82 Me. 433, 19 Atl. 912. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 7; Cent. Dig. §§ 14-20.

61 Taylor v. Young, 61 Wis. 314, 21 N. W. 408; McKinnis v. Estes, 81 Iowa, 749, 46 N. W. 987; Tuckerman v. Hinkey, 9 Allen (Mass.) 452; Dickinson v. Richmond, 97 Mass. 45; Love v. Wells, 25 Ind. 503, 87 Am. Dec. 375; Uhler v. Applegate, 26 Pa. 140; Beitenman's Appeal, 55 Pa. 183; Meriwether v. Smith, 44 Ga. 541; Bryant v. Booze, 55 Ga. 438; Tyler v. Waddington, 58 Conn. 375, 20 Atl. 335, 8 L. R. A. 657; Merrill v. Downs, 41 N. H. 72; Stack-pole v. Symonds, 23 N. H. 229; Moseley v. Vanhooser, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 286, 40 Am. Rep. 37; Butler v. Lee, 11 Ala. 885, 46 Am. Dec. 230. That bill of sale is made on Sunday, in pursuance of sale made on previous day, does not invalidate sale. Foster v. Wooten, 67 Miss. 540, 7 South. 501. But see Han-chett v. Jordan, 43 Minn. 149, 45 N. W. 617. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. § 35.

62 King v. Fleming, 72 I11. 21, 22 Am. Rep. 131; Bell v. Mahin, 69 Iowa, are on Sunday, is valid if the goods are not set apart and delivered until Monday.63

Same - Ratification

Whether a contract made on Sunday is capable of ratification is a question on which there is much conflict of authority. Upon principle, it seems that the contract, being void in its inception, is incapable of ratification, and many cases so hold.64 There is a tendency, however, to avoid the hardship resulting from the invalidity of such contracts, and many cases declare that such contracts are capable of ratification.65 Where the contract is one of sale or exchange accompanied by actual delivery, there is authority to the effect that the property does not pass, and that the seller may maintain replevin66 or trover;67 in which case it seems that a sufficient consideration for a new promise to pay may be found in the consent of the seller to the transfer of the property at the time of such promise; the liability of the promisor resting, however, upon a new contract, and not upon the ratification of the original contract.68 So, if a sale is made on Sunday, but the goods are not delivered until a week day, the buyer is liable, not upon the original promise, but upon an implied promise to pay for the goods.69 A contract for the performance on Sunday of work forbidden by law may not be ratified, because the very object of the contract is a violation of law.70 A contract made on a previous day cannot be rescinded on Sunday.71

408, 29 N. W. 331; Hill v. Dunham, 7 Gray (Mass.) 543; Stacey v. Kemp, 97 Mass. 166; Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 Vt. 370, 46 Am. Dec. 157; Hilton v. Houghton, 35 Me. 143; Gibbs & Sterrett Mfg. Co. v. Brucker, I11 U. S. 597, 4 Sup. Ct. 572, 28 L. Ed. 534; Schwab v. Rigby, 38 Minn. 395, 38 N. W. 101; Dohoney v. Dohoney, 7 Bush (Ky.) 217; Beman v. Wessels, 53 Mich. 549, 19 N. W. 179; Wilson v. Winter (C. C.) 6 Fed. 16. So, where one of two partners executes an assignment on Sunday, but the other partner executes and delivers it on a secular day. the instrument is valid. Farwell v. Webster, 71 Wis. 485, 37 N. W. 437. See "Sunday," Dec Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. § 35.

63 Rosenblatt v. Townsley, 73 Mo. 536; Banks v. Werts, 13 Ind. 203. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. § So.

64Day v. McAllister, 15 Gray (Mass.) 433; Allen v. Deming, 14 N. H. 133, 40 Am. Dec. 179; Winfield v. Dodge, 45 Mich. 355, 7 N. W. 906, 40 Am. Rep. 476; Tillock v. Webb, 56 Me. 100; Plaisted v. Palmer, 63 Me. 576; Kounta v. Price, 40 Miss. 341; Grant v. McGrath, 56 Conn. 333, 15 Atl. 370; Vinz v. Beatty, 61 Wis. 645, 21 N. W. 787; Riddle v. Keller, 61 N. J. Eq. 513, 48 Atl. 818; Acme Electrical, etc., Co. v. Van Derbeck. 127 Mich. 341, 86 N. W. 786, 89 Am. St. Rep. 476; Tennent-Stribling Shoe Co. v. Roper, 94 Fed. 739, 36 C. C. A. 455. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 15; Cent. Dig. § 46.

65 Russell v. Murdock, 79 Iowa, 101, 44 N. W. 237, 18 Am. St Rep. 348; Kuhns v. Gates, 92 Ind. 66; Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358; Parker v. Pitts, 73 Ind. 597, 38 Am. Rep. 155; Banks v. Werts, 13 Ind. 203; Gwinn v. Simes, 61 Mo. 335; Wilson v. Milligan, 75 Mo. 41; Campbell v. Young, 9 Bush (Ky.) 245; Williamson v. Brandenberg, 6 Ind. App. 97, 32 N. E. 1022; Sumner v. Jones, 24 Vt 317; Flinn v. St. John, 51 Vt 334; Schmidt v. Thomas, 75 Wis. 529, 44 N. W. 771; Van Hoven v. Irish (C. C.) 10 Fed. 13, 3 McCrary, 443; Cook v. Forker, 193 Pa. 461, 44 Atl. 560, 74 Am. St. Rep. 699. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 15; Cent. Dig. § 46.

66 Tucker v. Mowray, 12 Mich. 378; Winfield v. Dodge, 45 Mich. 355, 7 N. W. 906, 40 Am. Rep. 476. See, also, Magee v. Scott, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 148, 55

67 Ladd v. Rogers, 11 Allen (Mass.) 209. See, also, Myers v. Meinrath, 101 Mass. 366, 369, 3 Am. Rep. 368; Hall v. Corcoran, 107 Mass. 251, 9 Am. Rep. 30; Cranson v. Goss, 107 Mass. 439, 441, 9 Am. Rep. 45. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 15; Cent. Dig. § 46.