The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-05-15
SUNDAY CONTRACT
IS NOT INVALID
Chief Justice Clark on
Sunday Legislation.
1,5OO YEARS REVIEW
Text of Opinion of Supreme Court in
Case OF Rodman :. Robinson, from
Pender---0nIy Labor of Ones
Ordinary Calling is a
Violation of Statute.


The following opinion of the S,,.
preme Court. written by Chief Justice
Walter Clark, holds that Sunday con.
tracts are not invalid and reviews the
history of Sunday legislation for sf.
teen hundred years:
Rodman V. Robinson.
Appeal from Judge w. r. Allen. Su-
perlor court of Pender county.
=, ID. Kerr. F. r. Cooper, and Shep-
nerd & Shepherd, for appellant. Con-
nor & Connor and E. K. BRYAN, for
appelIees
Clark. c. j. On Sunday, September
IA, 1902, the defendant, who then
was and still is the owner in fee and
IN possession OF the land described III
the complaint, contracted in writing
dated September Is, 1902, with plain
CiH Rodman to sell him said land
possession to be given January, 1903,
ana deed to be delivered April. 1909
at which time the purchase money
was to be paid. In December. 1902.
defendant Informed Rodman that he
would not deliver possession nor ac-
cept purchase money, and repudiat-
: ed the contract. Nevertheless Rod
man did tender the $4,000, the agreed
price, in money, on April /, 1903, or
as soon thereafter as defendant could
De round, and demanded the deed.
out defendant refused to accept the
money or deliver the deed. The con-
tract is admitted in the answer. and
judgment for specific performance was
rendered upon the pleadings and de-
tenuant appealed.
The second assignment of error is:
Bscause the contract to convey was
entered into and signed upon Sunday
and, no consideration being passed
and the defendant having repudiated
the contract the week following, said
contract is not enforceable, and the
Judgment should have declared said
contract to be void
This exception hinges upon the
question whether the contract is in
valid because entered into and signed
on Sunday. A contract entered into on
Sunday is not invalid at common law
Clark on Cont. D. 393; Drury V. De
Fontaine, l Taunton, 131 Tin which it
was held that vender could recover
the price of a horse sold on Sunday !;
Benjamin on Sales, p. 552. Our statute
Code, p. 37S2--is copied almost YER
batim from the first part of the statute
23 Car. H., c. Z C67S). The other part
forbidding service of process on Sun
day is omitted from our statute,
which merely provides that ION the
Lords Day, commonly called Sunday,
no tradesman, artificer, planter, labor
ers or other person shall do or
exercise any labor business or work
of his ordinary calling upon
pain that every person so offending
shall forfeit and pay one dollar"
This part was construed by Lord
Mansfield in Drury V. De Fontaine,
supra, not to invalidate a sale of a
horse on Sunday, where the sale was
ma rf of NJ lin.
calling. This statute is the foundation
of nearly all the Sunday legislation
in this country. 1t is not alleged in
the answer that this contract was
made and entered into by either the
plaintiff Rodman or the defendant
Robinson, in pursuance by either of
his ordinary calling. This point has
decisions. In Melvin V. Easley, = n.
G. 356. the court said: "Tle
statute in its operation IS coIfined
TO manual, visible, or noisy l;,bc" such
as is calculated 10 disturb
other people; for example, keeping
open shop or working at black
smiths anvil. The Legislature has
power 10 prohibit labor of this kind
on Sunday on the ground of public
decency. But when it goes
further, and prohibits labor
which is done in private, the power
is exceeded and the statute is void"
In that case 1t was held that selling q
horse on Sunday was not forbidden
by the statute, as dealing in horses
was not Melvin's Ordinary calling
Again, it is said in State v. Ricketts,
"A y. c.. 1872: I'm this State every
act may lawfully be done on Sunday
which may lawfully be done on any
other day. unless there is some statute
forbidding il TO be done on that day.''
This has been cited and approved in
White v Morris, 107 " c., at page
90, II s. E. so On which PAWS. J.
calls attention to tho fact that prior
to the Code civil process could not
legally be served on Sunday, but now
the restriction applies only 70 forb;
arrests i'm civil actions on that day)
approved also in State V. Penley. l07
n. C. $40; Ashe. j., N
state y. McGimsey. so y. c. 377. 60
81 N c., at page 626; MerrimOn, G.
TAYLOR " Erwin. 119 y. <. &c. all
these last holding that it
was not illegal to hold ,nI't on sun.
day if the Judge dsemed
il necessary. though out OF consl,''fa-
tions of propriety it ought not tc be
done unI"sS. necessary. IN State y.
Brooksbank. % n. C. rs. Ruffin. c. j.,
held that it was not indictablo to sell
goods in open shop on Sunday, and
i'm state " Williams, 26 n. c. 400,
the court, through the same Judge,
held it not indictable to work on Sun
dav. il not being indictable either at
common law Getting Rex V. Brother