(z) In Nason v. Dinsmore, 34 Me. 391, it was held, that a contract proved to have been made on the Lord's day, is not thereby rendered invalid, unless it be also proved that it was made before sunset. The presumption is that it was made on that part of the day in which it was lawful to do it. Hiller v. English, 4 Strobh. 486. See also Hill v. Dunham, 7 Gray, 543.

(a) Tracy v. Jenks, 15 Pick. 465.

(b) Fox v. Abel, 2 Conn. 541.

(c) Commonwealth v. Wolf, 3 S. & B. 48; City Council v. Benjamin, 2 Strobh. 508; Specht v. The Commonwealth, 8 Penn. St 312.

(d) Stackpole v. Symonds, 3 Foster, 229; Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358; Goes v. Whitney, 24 Vt. 187; Butler v. Lee, 11 Ala. 885; Bloxsome v. Williams, 3 B. & C. 232. And see Smith v. Sparrow, 4 Bing.

84.

(e) Hilton v. Houghton, 35 Me. 143; Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 Vt. 379; Commonwealth v. Kendig, 2 Penn. St. 448; Clough v. Davis, 9 N. H. 500; Hill v. Dunham, 7 Gray, 543.

(f) See Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358; Allen v. Deming, 14 N. H. 433; Shippey v. Eastwood, 9 Ala. 198. And see next note.

1 Harrison v. Colton, 31 la. 16.

2 King v. Fleming, 72 Ill. 21.

3 The rescission of a contract requiring certain formulas to be gone through with by the party making the same is as much business as the original contracting; and, if done on Sunday, is void. Benedict v. Bachelder, 24 Mich. 425. Sayles v. Wellman, 10 R. L 465, decided that a sale made on Sunday might become valid by a subsequent ratification, as by a part payment of the price and the giving a note for the balance. Van Hoven v. Irish, 3 McCrary, 443, was to the same effect. But Winfield v. Dodge, 45 Mich. 355, decided that the allowing possession of horses traded on Sunday to be retained afterwards will not prevent either party from reclaiming their own, unless a new contract has been made.

When a contract of sale is made on Sunday, and the property is delivered to the vendee, but the price is not paid, the question will arise whether the property so delivered becomes the property of the vendee, and whether he will be allowed to retain it without paying the price. We are inclined to think that both of these questions must be answered in the affirmative, though there is some conflict in the authorities. (g) 1

(g) In Smith v. Bean, 15 N. H. 577, Parker, C. J., referring to a contract of sale made on Sunday, said: "It is generally said of such an illegal contract, that it is void. If this were so, and the contract, in the broad sense of the term, were void, no property would pass by it; the vendor might reclaim the property at will, and, being his property, it would be subject to attachment and levy by his creditors, in the same manner as if the attempt to sell had never been made. But this is not what is intended by such phraseology. The transaction being illegal, the law leaves the parties to suffer the consequences of their illegal acts. The contract is void, so far as it is attempted to be made the foundation of legal proceedings. The law will not interfere to assist the vendor to recover the price. The contract is void for any such purpose. It will not sustain an action by the vendee upon any warranty or fraud in the sale. It is void in that respect. The principle shows that the law will not aid the vendor to recover the possession of the property, if he have parted with it. The vendee has the possession, as of his own property, by the assent of the vendor; and the law leaves the parties where it finds them. If the vendor should attempt to retake the property without process, the law, finding that the vendee had a possession which could not be controverted, would give a remedy for the violation of that possession. When, then, it is said that the contract is void, the language is used with reference to the question, whether there is any legal remedy upon it." But in the well-considered case of Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358, it was held, that in all cases of contracts entered into upon Sunday, if either party have done anything in execution of a contract, it is competent for him, upon another day, to demand of the other party a return of the thing delivered, or, where that is impracticable, compensation; and, if the other party refuse, the original contract becomes thereby affirmed, and the same rights and liabilities are induced as if the contract had been made upon the latter day. This is an indispensable exception to the general rule in regard to illegal contracts, in order to secure parties from fraud and overreaching, which would otherwise be practised upon Sunday by those who know their contracts are void, and that they are not liable civiliter for even frauds practised upon that day. In Williams v. Paul, 6 Bing. 653, the defendant kept a heifer which he had bought of a drover on Sunday, and afterwards made a promise to pay for. Held, that having kept the beast, he was liable at all events on a quantum meruit, notwithstanding the contract made on Sunday. But in Simpson v. Nicholls, 3 M. & W. 240, where, to a count for goods sold and delivered, the defendant pleaded that they were goods sold and delivered to him by the plaintiff, in the way of his trade, on a Sunday, contrary to the statute; and the plaintiff replied, that the defendant, after the sale and delivery of the goods, kept them for his own use, without returning or offering to return them, and had thereby become liable to pay so much as they were reasonably worth, the court held that the replication was bad, and doubts were expressed whether Williams v. Paul was correctly decided. In Dobson v. Harris, 10 Ala. 566, where a horse was sold on Sunday, and a note taken for the purchase-money on the same day, it was held, that both the contract and the note were void, and though the purchaser retained the horse in his possession, without objection or demand by the seller, the law will not imply a promise to pay the stipulated price, or what the horse is reasonably worth. But the contract being void, no property passed to the vendee, and he would be chargeable in trover upon proof of demand and refusal, or in assumpsit upon an express promise to pay, subsequently made in consideration of the retention of the horse.