Not only when the whole performance of a contractor's promise is in violation of a Sunday law, but where any material portion of it is, there can be no recovery upon the contract for any portion of the price or promised counter performance,54 unless a divisible compensation is fixed for the legal portion of the work. Nor can there be recovery upon a quantum meruit for the value of even the legal portion of the work.55

Similarly, where money is lent on Sunday the lender cannot recover either on an express or implied contract.56 If it is illegal to make a bargain on Sunday, no redress can be granted for fraud in inducing a party to enter into such a bargain.57

Tex. 542, 5 Ky. L. Rep. 86, 46 Am. Rep. 269.

53Knight v. Frass Co., 227 Pa. 185, 75 Ail. 1083.

54 Stewart 0. Thayer, 168 Mass. 519, 47 N. E. 420, 60 Am. St. Rep. 407; Albera v. Sciaretti, 72 N. Y. Misc. 496, 131 N. Y. S. 889.

55 Stewart v. Thayer, 170 Mam. 560, 49 N. E. 1020. See also Cole v. Brown-Hurley Hardware Co., 139 la. 487,117 N. W. 746, 18 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 1161, 16 Ann. Cas. 846, 850; Chapman v. Haley, 117 Ky. 1004, 80 8. W. 190, 4 Ann. Cas. 714; Handy v. St. Paul Globe Pub. Co., 41 Minn. 188,42 N. W. 872, 4 L. R. A. 466, 16 Am. St. Rep. 695; Foley v. Speir, 100 N. Y. 552, 3 N. E. 477; Norbeck & Nicholson Co. v. State, 32 N. Dak. 189, 142 N. W. 847, 849; Sullivan v. Horgan, 17 R. I. 109, 20 Atl. 232, 9 L. R. A. 110.

56 Finn v. Donahue, 35 Conn. 216; Meader v. White, 66 Me. 90, 22 Am.

Rep. 551; Rickards v. Rickards, 98 Md. 136, 137, 56 Atl. 397, 63 L. R. A. 724,103 Am. St. 393, 394; Troewert v. Decker, 51 Wis. 46, 8 N. W. 26, 37 Am. Rep. 808.

57 Grant v. McGrath, 56 Conn. 333 15 Atl. 370; Gunderson v. Richardson, 56 Iowa, 56, 8 N. W. 683, 41 Am. Rep. 81; Robeson v. French, 12 Mete. 24, 45 Am. Dec. 236. The contrary decision of Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358, must be defended, if at all, on the ground that bargains made on Sunday, though unenforceable, are not so far in violation of public policy as to require the application of the ordinary rules governing illegal contracts. Certainly a burglar could not be allowed to sue a companion for fraud in inducing him to enter into a house-breaking enterprise by his fraudulent misrepresentations of the spoil that could be obtained. See further infra, i 1791.