The fact that the parties discussed on Sunday the terms of a proposed bargain will not invalidate it if afterwards entered into on a secular day, and what took place on Sunday may be upon the agent. Kryzminski v. Callahan, 213 Mass. 207, 100 N. E. 335, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 140. But in McKee v. Verner, 230 Fa. 69, 86 Atl. 646, 44 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 727, the court refused to open a judgment entered under a warrant of attorney given on Sunday.

5Drury v. Defontaine, 1 Taunt. 131; Bloxsome v. Williams, 3 B. & C. 232; Smith v. Sparrow, 4 Bing. 84; Scarfe v;. Morgan, 4 M. & W. 270; Swann v. Swann (C. C), 21 Fed. 209; Sanders v. Johnson, 29 Ga. 526; Hazard v. Day, 14 Allen, 487, 92 Am. Dec. 790; Allen v. Gardiner, 7 R. I. 22; Hellams v. Abercrombie, 15 S. C. 110, 40 Am. Rep. 684; Mills v. Williams, 16 S. C. 593; Amis v. Kyle, 2 Yerg. 31, 24 Am. Sec. 463. "Labor or work of their callings " were the words of the earliest statute. 29 Charles II, c. 27.

6 Moore v. Murdock, 26 Cal. 514; Ward v. Ward, 75 Minn. 269, 77 N. W. 965; Holden v. O'Brien, 86 Minn. 297, 90 N. W. 531; Boynton v. Page, 13 Wend. 425; Batsford v. Every, 44 Barb. 618. Such a law was held constitutional in State v. Weiss, 97 Minn. 125, 105 N. W. 1127.

7 In Reynolds v. Stevenson, 4 Ind. 619, this was held broad enough to include sales. See also Shaw v. Williams, 87 Ind. 158, 44 Am. Rep. 756. But though in a broad sense of the words "labor or work," a sale or contract to sell may be included, it seems that a statute making illegal what was not illegal at common law should be strictly construed. Accordingly sales and contracts to sell generally have been held not within such a statute. Richmond v. Moore, 107 111. 429, 47 Am. Rep. 445; Eden v. People, 161 HI. 296, 300, 43 N. E. 1108, 32 L. R. A. 659, 52 Am. St. Rep. 365; Birks v. French, 21 Kans. 238; Roberts v. Barnes, 127 Mo. 405, 30 S. W. 113, 48 Am. St. Rep. 640; Horacek v. Keebler, 5 Neb. 355; Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio St. 387.

8 Carson v. Calhoun, 101 Me. 456, 64 Atl. 838; Barney 0. Spangler, 131 Mo. App. 58, 109 S. W. 855; Knight v. Press Co., 227 Pa. 185, 75 Atl. 1083; and see infra, Sec. 1710.

shown as explaining the meaning of what took place later.9 Within this principle, an offer made on Sunday, but accepted on a secular day, creates a valid contract.10 So a formal instrument as a bond or deed,11 or negotiable instrument,12 though signed on Sunday is valid if delivered on a secular day, since until delivery the transaction is incomplete.

Sec. 1702. Ownership may be transferred by agreement on Sunday. If it be assumed that a given conveyance, contract or sale made on Sunday is forbidden by the local law, it then becomes important to determine what is the effect, if any, of the transaction. A contract thus forbidden, which is wholly executory on both sides, clearly can be enforced by neither party.13 But it may be supposed that the bargain has been executed on one side or the other, at least in part. By far the most common case is where goods have been sold and the property in them passed, so far as it is possible for the parties to bring about that result on Sunday. If the effect of the transaction is completely nullified by its illegality, no property can pass and, consequently, the seller, even though the goods have been delivered, may later sue in trover or replevin to recover them. This result has been reached in some States.14 But the criticisms which have been previously made upon the theory that illegal contracts are wholly void 15 apply here with peculiar force. If it were true that such a sale was absolutely void, a bona fide purchaser from one who bought on Sunday would get no title - a result much to be deprecated.16 In fact the law seems to recognize that except as between the parties themselves the transaction is effectual.17

9 McKinnis v. Estes, 81 la. 749, 46 N. W. 987; Tuckerman v. Hinkley, 9 Allen, 452; Miles v. Janvrin, 200 Mass. 514, 518,86 N. E. 785; Silver v. Graves, 210 Mass. 26, 31, 95 N. E. 948; Wool-iver v. Boylston Ins. Co., 104 Mich. 132, 62 N. W. 149; Provenchee v. Piper, 68 N. H. 31, 36 Atl. 552; Burr v. Nivison, 75 N. J. Eq. 241, 72 Atl. 72, 138 Am. St. Rep. 554, 20 Ann. Gas. 35; Berry v. O'Neill (N. J. L.), 104 Atl. 25; Curtin v. People's Nat. Gas Co., 233 Pa. 397, 82 Atl. 503. But where an agreement provided that it should not be valid until ratified by a third person, and this ratification was given on Sunday, there was no valid contract. County Engineering Co. v. West, 88 N. J. Eq. 109, 102 Atl. 668.

10 Dickinson v. Richmond, 97 Mass. 45; Stackpole v. Symonds, 23 N. H. 229; McDonald v. Fernald, 68 N. H. 171. But see contra International Text Book Co. v. Ohl, 150 Mich. 131, 111 N. W. 768, 13 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 1157, 121 Am. St. Rep. 612.

11 Love v. Wells, 25 Ind. 503, 87 Am. Dec. 375; Hall v. Parker, 37 Mich. 590, 26 Am. Rep. 540; Schwab v. Rigby, 38 Minn. 395, 38 N. W. 101; Duggan v. Champlin, 75 Miss. 441, 23 So. 179;

Beitenman's Appeal, 55 Pa. 183; Far-well v. Webster, 71 Wis. 485, 37 N. W. 437; O'Day v. Meyers, 147 Wis. 549, 556,133 N. W. 605. See also the application of the same rule to contracts, apparently informal, in Gibbs & Ster-rett Mfg. Co. v. Brucker, 111 U. S. 597, 602, 28 L. Ed. 534, 4 S. Ct. 572; Harris v. Morse, 49 Me. 432, 77 Am. Dec. 269. On principle the question in the case of such contracts depends (1) upon whether a contract was made on Sunday, though the writing was not delivered (see supra, Sec. 28), and (2) if so, was this contract subsequently adopted on a secular day.

12 Flanagan v. Meyer, 41 Ala. 132; Young v. Dublin Fertilizer Works, 16 Ga. App. 651; King v. Fleming, 72 11I. 21, 22 Am. Rep. 131; Conrad v. Kinzie, 105 Ind. 281, 4 N. E. 863; Hill v. Dunham, 7 Gray, 543; Barger v. Farnham, 130 Mich. 487, 90 N. W. 281; Clough v. Davis, 9 N. H. 500; Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 Vt. 379, 46 Am. Dec. 157; O'Day v. Meyere, 147 Wis. 549, 133 N. W. 605.

13 County Engineering Co. v. West, 88 N. J. Eq. 109, 102 Atl. 668; Chestnut v. Harbaugh, 78 Pa. St. 473, and cases in this section pcuurim.