(q) In Massachusetts, Maine, and Michigan, the words of the statute are, that "no person shall do any manner of labor, business, or work, except only works of necessity and charity, on the Lord's day." In New Hampshire, "No person shall do any labor, business, or work, of his secular calling, works of necessity and mercy only excepted, on the Lord's day." In Vermont, "No person shall exercise any secular labor, business or employment, except such only as works of necessity and charity, on the Lord's day." In Connecticut, "No person shall do any secular business, work, or labor, works of necessity and mercy excepted, nor keep open any shop, warehouse, or workhouse, nor expose to sale any goods, wares, or merchandise, or any other property on the Lord's day." In Pennsylvania, "No person shall do or perform any worldly

There are but few reported cases which illustrate this employment or business whatsoever on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, works of necessity and charity only excepted." In Alabama, "No worldly business or employment, ordinary or servile work, works of necessity or charity excepted, shall be done, performed, or practised, by any person or persons, on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday." In Kentucky, "No work or business shall be done or performed on the Sabbath day, unless the ordinary household offices of daily necessity, or other work of necessity or charity." Under all the above statutes, it is now quite well settled, that all contracts of every description, entered into on Sunday, and not within the exceptions, are unlawful and void. Thus, in Towle v. Larrabee, 26 Me. 464, it was held, that a promissory note, made on the Lord's day, and given and received as the consideration for articles purchased on that day, is void. And in Hilton v. Houghton, 35 Me. 143, it is said to be a violation of the statute to sign and deliver a promissory note on the Lord's day; and a note so signed and delivered is therefore of no validity. And see Nason v. Dinsmore, 34 Me. 391; State v. Suheer, 33 Me. 539. In Allen v. Deming, 14 N. H. 133, it was held, that the execution and delivery of a promissory note on Sunday, is "business" of a person's "secular calling," and as such is prohibited by the statute; and the note is void. The same rule is well established in Vermont. See Lyon v. Strong, 6 Vt. 219; Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 Vt. 379; Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358. In Pattee v. Greely, 13 Met. 284, it was held, that an action could not be maintained on a bond which was executed, neither from necessity nor charity, on the Lord's day. And Shaw, C. J., said: "The statement of facts admits that there is nothing to show that the execution of this bond was a work of necessity or charity. Was its execution 'any manner of labor, business, or work,' within the meaning of the statute? Certainly it was. The legislature intended to prohibit secular business on the Lord's day, and did not confine the prohibition to manual labor, but extended it to the making of bargains, and all kinds of trafficking. The case of Geer v. Putnam, 10 Mass. 312, was, for a long time, supposed to have established a different rule in Massachusetts. But it may now be considered as overruled, so far as it is inconsistent with Pattee v. Greely, supra. The same rule has been established in Connecticut from an early day. Wight v. Geer, 1 Root, 474; Northnip v. Foot, 14 Wend. 248. And in Pennsylvania, Morgan v. Richards, 1 Browne, Pa. 171; Kepner v. Reefer, 6 Watts, 231; Fox v. Mensch, 3 Watts & S. 444; Commonwealth v. Kendig, 2 Penn. St. 448; Berrill v. Smith, 2 Miles, 402; Johnston v. The Commonwealth, 22 Penn. St 102. The same rule is established in Alabama. O'Donnell v. Sweeney, 5 Ala. 467; Shippey v. Eastwood, 9 Ala. 198; Dodson v. Harris, 10 Ala. 566; Butler v. Lee, 11 Ala. 885; Saltmarsh v. Tuthill, 13 Ala. 390; Rainey v. Capps, 22 Ala. 288. And, it seems, in Michigan. Adams v. Hamell, 2 Doug. 73. In Kentucky, the rule is less certain. In Ray v. Catlett, 12 B. Men. 532, Marshall, J., said: "We are not prepared to decide that the mere execution and delivery of a note, or its mere acceptance on Sunday, is laboring in any trade or calling; unless it be a part of some other transaction done also on Sunday, which may be regarded as labor in some trade or calling. And if the mere execution and delivery of a note could be deemed such labor, we are satisfied that its mere acceptance could not, and the person accepting it would not be involved in any consequence of a breach of the law by the other, unless he knew that the note had been made as well as delivered on Sunday." But in Slade v. Arnold, 14 B. Mon. 287, it was held, that all contracts, having for their consideration, or any part of it, the performance of any work or labor on Sunday, were void. And in Murphy v. Simpson, 14 B. Mon. 419, it was held, that an exchange of horses on Sunday was a violation of the statute, and void. In New York, the statute provides, that there "shall not be any servile laboring or working on the first day of the week, called Sunday, excepting works of necessity or charity;" and "no person shall expose to sale any wares, merchandise, fruit, herbs, goods, or chattels, on Sunday, except meats, milk, and fish, which may be sold at any time before nine of the clock in the morning." Under these provisions, it is held, first, that any contract which has for its consideration the doing of ordinary work or labor on Sunday, is void; second, that any contract which involves the exposing to sale of any wares, etc., on Sunday, is void. Thus, in Watts v. Van Ness, 1 Hill, 76, it was held, that a contract to perform labor on Sunday as an attorney's clerk, was void, and no compensation could be recovered. And see Palmer v. The City of New York, 2 Sandf. 318. So, in Smith v. Wilcox, 19 Barb. 581, it was held, that a contract to publish an advertisement in a newspaper issued on Sunday, was unlawful and void, as indistinction; (r)1 but some have occurred in practice, from which volving a violation of both the above provisions. The judgment in this case was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 24 N. Y. (10 Smith) 353, in an elaborate opinion, all the judges concurring. But contracts which are not liable to either of these objections, may be made on Sunday as well as any other day. Thus, in Boynton v. Page, 13 Wend. 425, it was held, that the prohibition against exposing to sale, on Sunday, any goods, chattels, etc., extends only to the public exposure of commodities to sale in the streets or stores, shops, warehouses, or market-places, and has no reference to mere private contracts, made without violating, or tending to produce a violation, of the public order and solemnity of the day; and, therefore, that a private transfer of personal property made on Sunday was valid. In Ohio, the statute provides, "that if any person shall be found, on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, at common labor, works of necessity and charity only excepted, he shall be fined in a sum not exceeding five dollars, nor less than one dollar." In the case of the City of Cincinnati v. Rice, 15 Ohio, 235, it was held, that the prohibition of "common labor" in the above statute, embraces the business of "trading, bartering, selling, or buying any goods, wares, or merchandise." In Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio St. 387, overruling Sellers v. Dugan, 18 Ohio, 489, it was held, that a contract entered into on Sunday, for the sale of land, was valid. But the court said: "It is not to be understood that, because a Sunday contract may be valid, therefore business may be transacted upon that as upon other days; as, for instance, that a merchant may lawfully keep open store for the disposition of his goods on the Sabbath. To wait upon his customers, and receive and sell his wares, is the common labor of a merchant; and there is a broad distinction between pursuing this avocation, and the case of a single sale out of the ordinary course of business." And Swisher v. Williams, Wright, 754. In Indiana, however, where the statute is precisely like that in Ohio, it is held, that all contracts made on Sunday are void. Link v. Clemmens, 7 Blackf. 479; Reynolds v. Stevenson, 4 Ind. 619. See also Pope v. Linn, 50 Me. 83, as to note made on Sunday, Miller v. Lynch, 38 Miss. 344. Moore v. Murdock, 26 Cal. 514, holds, that the law of that State does not make a sale on Sunday void. Contra, Pike v. King, 16 Iowa, 49; Finley v. Quirk, 9 Minn. 194.