A deed made on Sunday is void; but as it takes effect from delivery, although it be signed and acknowledged on Sunday, if delivered on Monday, it has been held good. (wx)2 One procuring an indorsement to himself on Sunday, cannot sue on the note. (wy)

If one is requested to render a service by a letter written and delivered on Sunday, and afterwards renders it, it is held that he can recover therefor, if he did not accept the offer and so enter into the contract on Sunday. (wz) 3 It is also held that a partpayment made and received on Sunday will not take a debt out of the statute of limitations. (wa) 4

An agreement of sale made on Sunday, the articles to be weighed and delivered on Monday, being carried into effect, the seller cannot recover on the contract, for that is void, but may on a quantum valebant. (wb) A note dated on Sunday, and then to take effect, is not a violation of the Sunday law if it were made and given on a previous day. (wc)

(v) Pattee v. Greely, 13 Met. 284. And see supra, note (q).

(w) Clapp v. Smith, 16 Pick. 247.

(ww) Vinton v. Peck, 14 Mich. 287.

(wx) Love v. Wells, 25 Ind. 503; Beitenman's Appeal, 55 Penn. St. 183; Flanagan v. Meyer, 41 Ala. 132.

(wy) Benson v. Drake, 55 Me. 555. (wz) Tuckerman v. Hinkley, 9 Allen, 452.

(wa) Dennis v. Sherman, 31 Ga. 607. (wb) Bradley v. Rea, 14 Allen, 20. (wc) Stacy v. Kemp, 92 Mass. 166.

1 So any written contract made on Sunday, but dated a secular day, will be enforced in the hands of a bona fide transferee without notice. Johns v. Bailey, 45 la. 241.

2 So a bond signed on Sunday, but without the knowledge of the obligee, and framed, dated, signed, and filed as of a secular day, and made to take effect on a secular day, is valid. Hall v. Parker, 37 Mich. 590.

3 A statutory penalty for not delivering a telegraphic message cannot be imposed when the contract to transmit was made on Sunday. Rogers v. Western Union Tel. Co. 78 Ind. 169.

4 Clapp v. Hale, 112 Mass. 368.

A more difficult question has arisen, which cannot be positively answered on authority. It may be stated thus: If A makes a bargain with B, prohibited by the Sunday law, and therefore void, and B, by means which this bargain gives him, and by an abuse of the bargain on his part, commits a wrong against A, is A barred by his illegal conduct from getting redress for the wrong? Thus, if A lets a horse to B on Sunday, to go from C to D, and nowhere else, it is certain that A cannot recover for the hire of the horse. But if B drives him from D to E, and by hard driving, a part of which is on this added route, B kills the horse, can A now recover? The Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that A cannot recover, even in trover, partly, because the action, though sounding in tort, is in fact for damages for breach of contract, but mainly, because the plaintiff must found his right of action upon his own wrong-doing in the first place, and by that wrong-doing he enabled the * defendant to do his wrong; (x) but has since overruled this decision. (xx) The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has held, that the property in the horse remained in the original owner, and that the driving of it to another place than that bargained for was a conversion, for which trover would lie; (y) and in New York it has been held that while the hire cannot be recovered, damages for wilful or negligent injury may be. (yy) The question presents much difficulty, and collateral decisions and strong arguments apply on each side of it; but we incline to the view held in New Hampshire and New York.l

What constitutes the "Lord's day," within the provisions of these statutes, is usually determined by exact definition by the statutes themselves. Sometimes this is different, for different purposes. In Massachusetts, no labor, etc, is to be done "between the midnight preceding and sunsetting on the Lord's day," but no civil process can be served between the midnight preceding and the midnight following that day. (z) Under this statute it has been held, that a mortgage deed executed, acknowledged, and recorded, after sunset on Sunday evening, was not void as against an attaching creditor. (a) In Connecticut, the Lord's day has been defined as continuing from daybreak to the closing of daylight on Sunday. (b)

(x) Gregg v. Wyman, 4 Cush. 322. (xx) Hill v. Corcoran, 107 Mass. 251.

(y) Woodham v. Hubbard, 5 Foster, 67. (yy) Nodine v. Doherty, 46 Barb. 59.

1 An action will not lie to recover damages for fraudulent representations made as inducement to a contract entered into on Sunday. Gunderson v. Richardson, 56 la. 56. Where a special contract is made to carry passengers on Sunday, no damages are recoverable for annoyance and vexation of mind caused by a failure to furnish a return train at the appointed time. Walsh v. Chicago, etc. R. Co. 42 Wis. 23. See also Murdock v. Boston, etc. R. Co. 133 Mass. 15. Troewert v. Decker, 51 Wis. 46, decided that the mere fact that a person borrowing money on Sunday retains it and converts it to his own use, does not raise an implied promise binding in law. and upon which an action can be maintained. See also Myers v. Meinrath, 101 Mass. 366; Cranson v. Goss, 107 Mass. 439; Pope v. Linn, 50 Me. 83; Tillock v. Webb, 56 Me. 100; Finn v. Donahue, 35 Conn. 216.

In Massachusetts and New York, and some other States, it is provided, that the Sunday laws shall not apply to those persons who conscientiously observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, if they do not disturb others in their observance of Sunday. But in Pennsylvania and South Carolina, there is no such exception; and it has been contended, that the Sunday laws of those States were in this respect in violation of that provision in their constitutions which guarantees freedom of religious profession and worship to all mankind. But this view has not been sustained by the courts. (c)

If a contract is commenced on Sunday, but not completed * till a subsequent day, or if it merely grew out of a trans action which took place on Sunday, it is not for this reason void. (d)1 Thus, if a note is signed on Sunday, its validity is not impaired if it be not delivered on that day. (f)2 Whether a contract entered into on Sunday will be rendered valid by a subsequent recognition, is not clear upon the authorities. (f)3