An action may be maintained on a negotiable note made on Sunday, but dated on a secular day by one who purchased it in good faith.33 And though one who took the instrument with knowledge of the illegality of its execution cannot recover upon it,34 neither the fact that the holder purchased after maturity,35 nor that the holder was a donee 36 has been held a reason for denying relief to one who acquired innocently an instrument bearing a secular date. Similarly, the grantor under a deed executed on Sunday, but bearing a secular date, cannot set up the illegality against an innocent purchaser of the property.37 Though the fact that a note or other instrument is dated on a Sunday is not conclusive proof that it was in fact executed on that day, since it takes effect only from delivery,38 yet the dating should put a purchaser on inquiry, and if in fact the instrument was made on Sunday, he cannot be regarded as taking without notice.39
Ala. 389, 39 So. 553; Love v. Wells, 25 Ind. 503, 87 Am. Dec. 375; Schiffer v. Douglass, 74 Kan. 231, 86 Pac. 132. Under the Illinois statute such a deed is valid. Prout v. Hoy Oil Co., 283 111. 54,105 N. E. 26; as it is in West Virginia; Wooldridge v. Wooldridge, 69 W. Va. 554, 72 S. E. 654, Ann. Gas., 1913 B. 563.
29 Ellis v. Hammond, 57 Ga. 179; Swisher v. Williams, Wright (Ohio), 754; Shuman v. Shuman, 27 Pa. 90. Even though title has not been transferred, a seller who has transferred possession cannot have the aid of a court of equity to cancel, because of the buyer's default, a contract made on Sunday. Berston v. Gilbert, 180 Mich. 638, 147 N. W. 496.
30 In Tennent-Stribling Shoe Co. v. Roper, 94 Fed. 739, 36 C. G. £. 455, it was held that a debtor when sued by an assignee of his creditor could not set up that the assignment was made on Sunday. In Richardson v. Kimball, 28 Me. 463, the defendant when sued in trover was not allowed the defence that the plaintiff's title was obtained on Sunday.
30a Williams v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 257 Pa. 354, 101 Atl. 748.
31 1 Ames' Cas. Bills & Notes, 352.
32 First Nat. Bank v. Kingsley, 84 Me. Ill, 24 Atl. 794.
33 Begbie v. Levi, 1 Cr. & Jerv. 180; Myers v. Kessler, 142 Fed. 730, 74 C. G. A. 62; Saltmarsh v. Tuthill, 13 Ala. 390, 406; Moseley v. Selma Nat. Bank, 3 Ala. App. 614, 57 So. 91; Heise v. Bumpass, 40 Ark. 545; Greathead v. Walton, 40 Conn. 226; Collins v. Collins, 139 la. 703, 117 N. W. 1089, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1176; Gooch v. Gooch, 178 la. 902, 160 N. W. 333, L. R. A. 1917 C. 582; Bank of Cumberland v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 198; Cranson v. Goss, 107 Mass. 439, 9 Am. Rep. 45; Gordon v. Levine, 197 Mass. 263, 83 N. E. 861, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 243, 125 Am. St. Rep. 361; Vinton v. Peck, 14 Mich. 287; State Capitol Bank v. Thompson, 42 N. H. 369; Clark v. Barthold, 87 N. J. L. 255, 93 Atl. 699; Crombie v. Overholtaer, 11 U. C. (Q. B.) 55.