The common law does not prohibit the making of contracts on Sunday, and, in the absence of statutory prohibition, such contracts are as valid as if made on any other day.45 In most states, however, statutes have been enacted on the subject.46

Where the statute expressly prohibits the making- of contracts on Sunday, and declares that they shall be void, there should be no difficulty in applying it; *7 and, if a statute prohibits servile work and labor on Sunday, there can of course be no recovery for such work.*8

Where it is provided that no person shall do any labor, work, or business on Sunday, all secular business is prohibited. Not only would a contract to do work on Sunday, made on some other day, be illegal because of the object,49 but a contract made on Sunday to work on another day would be likewise prohibited. The making of a contract is secular business, within the meaning of the statute.50 But where the prohibition is only against servile work

44 Mitchell v. Scott, 62 N. H. 596; post, p. 414. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 105; Cent. Dig. §§ 468-497.

45 Story v. Elliott, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 27, 18 Am. Dec. 423; Sayles v. Smith, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 57, 27 Am. Dec. 117; Richmond v. Moore, 107 I11. 429, 47 Am. Rep. 445; Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio St. 387; Swann v. Swann (C. C.) 21 Fed. 299; Adams v. Gay, 19 VL 358; Brown v. Browning, 15 R. I. 422, 7 Atl. 403, 2 Am. St. Rep. 908. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 11; Cent. Dig. §§ 30-34

46 Sunday laws are not an unconstitutional interference with the religious liberty of the people. State v. O'Rourk, 35 Neb. 614, 53 N. W. 591, 17 L. R. A. 830; State v. Judge, 39 La. Ann. 132, 1 South. 437; Scales v. State, 47 Ark. 476, 1 S. W. 769, 58 Am. Rep. 768; Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U. S. 164, 20 Sup. Ct. 666, 44 L. Ed. 716; Hennington v. State, 163 U. S. 299, 16 Sup. Ct 1086, 41 L. Ed. 166; State v. Powell, 58 Ohio St. 324, 50 N. E. 900, 41 L. R, A. 854. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 11; Cent. Dig. §§ 30-34.

47 Burns v. Moore, 76 Ala. 339, 52 Am. Rep. 332. In Maine, and probably in some of the other states, the statute provides that the defense that a contract was executed on Sunday cannot be made to an action thereon unless the consideration is returned. Wentworth v. Woodside, 79 Me. 156, 8 Atl. 763; First Nat Bank v. Kingsley, 84 Me. Ill, 24 Atl. 794; Wheelden v. Ly-ford, 84 Me. 114, 24 Atl. 793. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 11; Cent. Dig. §§ 30-34.

48 Watts v. Van Ness, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 76. See "Sunday," Deo. Dig. (Key-No.) § 11; Cent. Dig. §§ 30-34.

49 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. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 11; Cent. Dig. §§ 30-34.

50Northrup v. Foot, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 248; Pattee v. Greely, 13 Metc. (Mass.) 284; Towle v. Larrabee, 26 Me. 464; Lyon v. Strong, 6 Vt 219; Varand labor, the making of contracts, including the execution of commercial paper, is not generally regarded as included.51 Again, if the prohibition is confined to labor, business, or work of a man's "ordinary calling," contracts or other business or work on Sunday by a person is not illegal unless it is within his ordinary calling." A real-estate broker or lawyer, therefore, would not violate the statute by purchasing or selling a horse on Sunday. If the statute prohibits the exposure of merchandise for sale on Sunday, the prohibition extends only to public sales, and does not prevent private contracts of sale without such exposure.53