The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-05-15

4
favoid offense by the noise and tumult
/ of traffic and labor to the great ma
| iority who desire a day of quiet and
peace for their devotional services.
| Bishop on Contracts, p. 1886, says: 1t
| is abundantly settled that sunday
contract is good when 1t does not
come in conflict with any statute. we
do not deny the constitutlonahty OF
n Sunday law based on the ponce pow
er, which is we'll settled. Judethe Y.
State, p L. r. A. 721, and notes. we
hold that our statute does not make
void the contract here sued on. In
the language of Caldwell j. IN
Swami V. Swami &C. c. Fl Fed, at
page 305: 1T would be DOWNRIGHT
hypocrisy for a court to affect to be-
leve that the moral sense OF that COM
munity would be shocked by Compel
ing man to pay q note given Tor an
honest debt because it was executed
on the Lords Day" And the same
is true of the enforcement of any con-
tract which is not forbidden by
the statute to be made on Sunday.
Among the authorities elsewhere
which hold in accordance with our de-
cisions that a note or contrat made
. on Sunday is valid are Barrett V.
Arlington, Fed. Cas-. No. 1,045; More
v. Clymer, 2 Mo. App. IL; Glover v.
Cheatham, 10 Mo. App. 656; Sanders
V. Johnson, 20 Ga. 500; Borough v.
Mort Co Goa. 1909 As S. E. %; Ray
V. Catlett 81 Ky. 532; Hazard V. Day,
IA Allen, 4S7, 80 Am. Dec. 100; Geer
V. Putnam, 10 Mass. 312; Kaufman V.
Hamm, 80 Mo. 3SS (Which held valid
a promissory note made on Sunday;
Foster V. Wooten, 81 Miss $40;
Horacek V. Keebler, Neb. 355 Fitz-
gerald V. Andrews, Is Neb. So;
Switsher V. Williams, Wright, 754;
Bloom V. Richards, Ohio st. 387;
Hellams V. Abercrombie, Is S. G. 10,
40 Am Rep. 6S4 (Which holds mort
gage executed on Sunday to be valid);
Mills V Williams, 16 S. c. 593; Lucas
V. Larkin, So Tenn. 355, (privy exami-
nation on Sunday valid); Gibbs V.
Brucker, III u. S. 597; Allen V.
Gardner, r. T. %: Moore V. Muir
dock. 26 Cal. 514; Johnson W Brown,
Is Kan. 529; Birks V. French p Kan.
23S; Boynton V. Page, Is Wend. 425;
Miller V. Roessler, f. d. Smith, 2S4;
Batsford V. Every, A Barb. els; Mer-
rift V. Earle, 20 n. Y. SIS, Sc Am.
Dec. 292; Eberle V. Mehrbach, 55 n.
Y. 6S2; Amis V. Kyle, 2 Yerg. 81. "a
Am. Dee. 463; Beham v Chic, rs Tex.
81; Schneider V. SAMSON, 81 Tex.
201, so Am. Rep. 521; Rich
Rep. 445; Main V. Johnson, Z Wash.
321; Raines V. Watson, 2 w.
va. 81; Clark Contracts, $685.
and there are others to same pur-
port. There are decisions to the con-
trary, but they will be found almost
entirely in States where the statute,
unlike ours, is not restricted to labor,
business, or work done in ones ordi-
nary calling but is extended in its
20 11a 1ni1 ~
ton of contracts of all kinds on Sun
day. In such cases. as is said in
Swami V. Swami &C. CO. q Fed. 299:
Contracts made on the Lords Day
are not void on religious or moral
grounds, but upon the familiar and
established doctrine that when a statute
infiicts Il penalty for doing an act-no
matter what that act may be--a court
of justice will not enforce a contract
made in violation of such statute"
The execution of a will on Sunday
seems to be held valid everywhere.
The Pennsylvania court in 1850 was
evenly divided on the question wheth-
er "a marriage contract executed on
Sunday was such worldly employment
or business as was forbidden on that
day" (In re Gangwere's Estate, "A Pa.
All, 80 Am. Dec. 554; but better ad-
vised later, in 1882 they held that a
contract OF marriage entered into on
Sunday was valid (Markley V. Kesser-
ing. 2 Penny. 1917.
To sum up the whole matter, the
validity, i'm the courts. of any act done
on Sunday, depends not upon religious
views, but upon the statute of each
particular State, and our statute only
forbidding Labor, work, or business
of ones ordinary calling" does not in
validate contract as here which was
not an act done as a part of the plain
tiff's usual business or calling. Bishop
Contracts. p. 538, and cases cited. AS
was said in State V. Ricketts,, supra:
''What religion and morality permit
or forbid to be done on Sunday is not
within our province to decide" =
No error.
Wa'<c". y. Concur5 i'm result. Con-
nor, j., having been of counsel, did
not sit on the hearing of this case.