A sale of chattels on Sunday is followed by the same consequences as if entered into upon a secular day except that all remedy is denied to either of the wrongdoers.18 Accordingly

14 Dodson v. Harris, 10 Ala. 560; Ladd v. Rogers, 11 Allen, 209 (practically overruled on this point by Myers v. Meinrath, 101 Mass. 366,3 Am. Rep. 368); Tucker v. Mowrey, 12 Mich. 378; Winfield v. Dodge, 45 Mich. 355, 7 N. W. 906, 40 Am. Rep. 476; Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358. In most of these decisions the court seems not so much to hold the transaction void as voidable on return of the consideration.

15 See supra, Sec. 1630.

16 Sunday laws cannot be successfully invoked against such a purchaser. Mann v. United Motor Boston Co., 226 Mass. 495, 116 N. E. 239.

17 Thus one who claims ownership of goods bought on Sunday by the defendant must establish a title superior to that of him of whom the defendant bought. Moore v. Kendall, 2 Pinn. 99, 52 Am. Dec. 145.

18 Mann v. United Motor Boston Co., 226 Mass. 495, 116 N. E. 239. This was well explained in Smith v. Bean, 15 N. H. 577, 578, Parker, C. J., saying: "It is generally said of such an illegal contract that it is void. Drury v. Defontaine, 1 Taunt. 131; Allen v. Deming, 14 N. H. 133, 137, 138, 40 Am. Dec. 179, and cases there cited; Lewis v. Welch, 14 N. H. 294, 298. 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 a buyer becomes the owner of the goods sold and delivered to him on Sunday and may retain them, though the consequence of so holding 18a is to permit him to obtain the benefit of the transaction without liability for the price;19 since no action for the price,20 or for the value of the goods,21 can be maintained. Nor can a payment made on Sunday be recovered.22 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. See Fennell v. Ridler, 5 B. & C. 406, opinion of Bayley, J."

18a Bertram v. Morgan, 173 Ky. 655, 191 S. W. 317, L. R. A. 1917 D. 445; Rickards v. Rickards, 98 Md. 136, 56 AH. 397, 63 L. R. A. 724, 103 Am. St. 393, and see cases in the following notes.

19 Kinney v. McDermot, 55 Iowa, 674, 39 Am. Rep. 191; Kelley v. Cos-grove, 83 Iowa, 229; Myers v. Mein-r&th, 101 Mass. 366, 3 Am. Rep. 368; Smith v. Bean, 15 N. H. 577; Foster v. Wooten, 67 Miss. 540, 7 So. 501; Troe-wert v. Decker, 51 Wis. 46, 8 N. W. 26, 37 Am. Rep. 808. In Maine this rule was altered by statute in 1880, which enacted that one who receives a valuable consideration for a contract made on Sunday shall not defend against it on that ground until he restores the consideration. See Bridges v. Bridges, 93 Me. 557, 45 Atl. 827. Such a statute sets up a different rule from that applicable to illegal bargains generally. Under it executory contracts cannot be enforced, but partially executed ones become enforceable unless rescinded by the restoration of the consideration received. Such a rule may be appropriate in a community where a sale on Sunday is not regarded as so wrongful in its nature as to justify the application of the ordinary rule that .parties to illegal bargains are left by the law without remedy, whatever their position may be. A result somewhat similar to that reached in Maine by statute seems to have been reached in some other States without the aid of a statute like the Maine act of 1880. Dodson v. Harris, 10 Ala. 566; Tucker v. Mowrey, 12 Mich. 378; Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358.

20 Wadsworth v. Dunnam, 117 Ala. 661, 23 So. 699; Pike v. King, 16 Iowa, 49; Thompson v. Williams, 58 N. H. 248; Foreman v. Ahl, 55 Pa. St. 325.

21 Ladd v. Rogers, 11 Allen, 209; Troewert v. Decker, 51 Wis. 46, 8 N. W. 26, 37 Am. Rep. 808. The Maine statute referred to supra, n. 19 changes this result, and the decisions which are cited in the same note as reaching a result like that produced by the statute are also opposed.

22 Calkins v. Seabury-Calkms, etc.,