The legality of contracts made or to be performed on Sunday is a question governed, in most jurisdictions, by statute. The enactments vary widely, as do their interpretations by the courts. The discussion of either is without the proper limits of this treatise. It should be noted, however, that a contract illegal because entered into on Sunday is peculiar in that the violation of law is consummated the moment the contract is made. It follows that there should be no locus poenitentioe for the parties to such a contract.1 There are cases to the contrary,2 which rest upon the misapprehension that the locus poenitentioe continues until the contract is wholly executed (see ante, Sec. 144). Indeed there are cases which permit the recovery of money paid or property delivered under a Sunday contract which has been fully performed on both sides;3 but this is clearly contrary to the weight of authority.4 On the other hand, in the case of a contract which, although made on a secular day, is illegal because to be performed in whole or in part on Sunday the right to resile and recover the benefit of part performance continues until by performance on Sunday the violation of law is accomplished.5

1 Wise v. Rose, 1895, 110 Cal. 159; 42 Pac. 569; McLennan v. Whiddon, 1904, 120 Ga. 666; 48 S. E. 201; Alexander v. Mount, 1858, 10 Ind. 161; Adkins v. Flemming, 1870, 29 la. 122; Turner v. Thompson, 1900, 107 Ky. 647; 55 S. W. 210; McDonough v. Webster, 1878, 68 Me. 530; Pabst Brewing Co. v. Liston, 1900, 80 Minn. 473; 83 N. W. 448; 81 Am. St. Rep. 275. See Johnston v. Russell, 1869, 37 Cal. 670, 676.

2 McKee v. Manice, 1853, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 357; West v. Holmes, 1854, 26 Vt. 530.

3 Love v. Harvey, 1873, 114 Mass. 80; Guthman v. Parker, 1859, 3 Head (Tenn.) 233.

4 Hastelow v. Jackson, 1828, 8 Barn. & Cress. 221; Hale v. Sherwood, 1873, 40 Conn. 332; 16 Am. Rep. 37, (with a vigorous dissenting opinion).

5 Maher v. Van Horn, 1900, 15 Colo. App. 14; 60 Pac. 949; Oker-son v. Crittenden, 1883, 62 la. 297; 17 N. W. 528.

One who is induced by fraudulent representations to enter into a contract which is in violation of a Sunday law should not be regarded as in pari delicto and consequently should be allowed to recover a benefit conferred in performance of the contract. It has been so held;6 but there are cases denying relief.7

1 See Cranson v. Goss, 1871, 107 Mass. 439, 441; 9 Am. Rep. 45, where Gray, J., said: "If a chattel has been sold and delivered on the Lord's day without payment of the price, the seller cannot recover either the price or the value; not the price agreed on that day, because the agreement is illegal; not the value, because, whether the property is deemed to have passed to the defendant, or to be held by him without right, there is no ground upon which a promise to pay for it can be implied." Also Troewert v. Decker, 1881, 51 Wis. 46; 8 N. W. 26; 37 Am. Rep. 808.

2 Brown v. Timmany, 1851, 20 Ohio 81. And see Myers v. Mein-rath, 1869, 101 Mass. 366, 369; 3 Am. Rep. 368.

3 Tucker v. Mowery, 1864, 12 Mich. 378; Brazee v. Bryant, 1883, 50 Mich. 136; 15 N. W. 49.

4 Thornhill v. O'Rear, 1896, 108 Ala. 299; 19 So. 382; 31 L. R. A. 793, (but see Dodson v. Harris, 1846,10 Ala. 566); Kelley v. Cosgrove, 1891, 83 la. 229; 48 N. W. 979; Myers v. Meinrath, 1869, 101 Mass. 366; 3 Am. Rep. 368; Foster v. Wooten, 1890, 67 Miss. 540; 7 So. 501; Thompson v. Williams, 1878, 58 N. H. 248; Chestnut v. Harbaugh, 1875, 78 Pa. St. 473; Cohn v. Heimbauch, 1893, 86 Wis. 176; 56 N. W. 638.

5 See Stewart v. Thayer, 1898, 170 Mass. 560; 49 N. E. 1020.

6 Adams v. Gay, 1847, 19 Vt. 358.

7 Plaisted v. Palmer, 1874, 63 Me. 576. And see Robeson v. French, 1846, 12 Met. (Mass.) 24; 45 Am. Dec. 236; Northrup v. Foot, 1835, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 248.