In New Jersey the statute provides, "That no travelling, worldly employment or business, ordinary or servile labor or work either upon land or water (works of necessity and charity excepted), . . . . shall be done . . . . on the Christian Sabbath, or first day of the week, commonly called Sunday."22
So in New Jersey a parol agreement to sell land made on Sunday was held void because the bargain was made on Sunday, and that no subsequent recognition of it, short of a new bargain, could give it validity.23
An Illinois case,24 construing Sec.261 of the Illinois Criminal Code, holds that the act of labor on Sunday is not an offense if done in a way not to disturb the peace and good order of society.25
Worldly employment or business on Sunday is made a punishable offense in Pennsylvania.26
The Pennsylvania Sunday law27 merely denounces a penalty for violation of its provisions, and does not expressly annul or avoid the act done.28
The effect of such provisions on executory contracts, as distinguished from executed contracts, is discussed in the following section.
In Massachusetts, all manner of labor, business or work, except works of necessity or charity, is prohibited, under fine.29
The Wisconsin statute30 inflicts a fine on any person who does any manner of labor, business, or work, except only works of necessity and charity, on Sunday.
The Florida statute provides. "Whoever follows any pursuit, business or trade on Sunday, either by manual labor or with animal or mechanical power, except the same be work of necessity, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $50."31
22 N. T. R. S. 595, 608, Vol. 3, Gen. St. N. J. p. 3707.
23 Ryno v. Darby, 20 N. J. Eq. 231 (1869).
24 Foll v. People, 66 111. App. 411 (1896).
25This case digests: Johnston v. People, 31 111. 473; Scammen v. Cit* of Chicago, 40 111. 146; Richmond v. Moore. 107 111. 433; McPherson v. Village of Chebanse, 114 HI. 49; Eden v. People, 161 111. 296.
26 3 Sm. L. 177, Sec. 1; Pepper & Lewis' Dig. Vol. 2, p. 4406. 27Stat, of Apl. 22, 1794.
28 Shunan v. Shuman, 27 Penn. St. 90 (1856).
29 Mass R. L. Ch. 98. Sec.2, as amended by Act of June 9, 1904.
30\'isc. St 1898, Sec. 4595.
31Sec. 3565, Fla. Gen. St. 1906. See Sec. 235g as to construction of this statute.
In Shuman v. Shuman,32 it was said that the construction usually given to the act of 1794, is that contracts made on Sunday are void, agreeably to the principle that every contract made for or about any matter or thing which is prohibited or made unlawful by statute is a void contract, though the statute does not mention that it shall be so but only inflicts a penalty on the offender, because a penalty implies a prohibition though there are no prohibitory words in the statute. "This rule was predicated of an executory contract. . . . The law will not lend its aid to enforce a contract made in violation of the provisions of a statute; but the question now presented is whether the law will undo such a contract when the parties themselves have fully executed it.....If two men agree on
Sunday to exchange horses, their contract, so far as respects any legal remedies, is void; but if they make the exchange in pursuance of their agreement, will the law compel them to trade back? The answer to these questions is obvious. A contract not void at common law, nor expressly avoided by any statute, and which has been fully executed by the parties, binds them although it was made on Sunday."