Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-05-02
is CONTRACT SIGNED
ON SABBATH DAY VALID?
Question Will BE Determined by
United States Circuit Court
of Appeals.
POINT UP FROM HopEwELL
Baker Agreed to Sell for $4,000.
Later Claimed Agreement Was
Void, and Land Brought $4,000
at Court Sale by Auction.

|
is contract entered into and signed
on the Sabbath day null ana void. O,
are It's terms just rs binding on the
contracting parties as IL the agree.
! ment were made on some other day
of tho week? Does the Virginia statute
t when il says that 'if person on the
| sabbath day he found laboring at any
! trade or calling or other business. cN-
cept household or other work of ncces
sity or charity. no shall be deemed
! guilty OF a misdemeanor," mean that 4
! man may not enter into an agreement
| OF business nature. or does II mean
literally tina, lie shall not 'labor"?
| Judge l.. l.. Lewis. of Richmond. ex-
| president of the State Supreme Court
7 of Appeals and former United States
| District Attorney. and Charles e. Plum
! mcr. OF Petersburg. will argue to-day
| before the United States Circuit Court
| OF Appeals, in session here. that an I'm
! Strument drawn UP and signed on Sun
| day has All the force of one entered
! into on Monday, and former Speaker
! Edwin r. Cox. of the House OF Dele
Satcs; Bernard C.. Syme, and Richard
II. Mann. of Petersburg. will contend
/ that such Il contract is without the
pale of the law and is incapable OF en-
/ forccmcut
QUESTION COMES Up
; on CASE FROM HOPEWELL
The question will be brouched In the
case OF !. ]. Dunlop against Robert
| Edward Baker, which is suit APP
pealed from the United States District
| Court OF Richmond, in which there Is
| involved the validity of an option al
legged to have been signed on Sunday,
, and secured by Dunlop from the de-
PENDANT OH tract OF land, compris-
Ing AIS acres. situated on the Appomat-
toN River near TIopeweli In the op-
| tlon Baker agreed that Dunlop might
become the purchaser OF the land at
any time within three months. at a
| consideration OF $4,000.
J Judge Waddill. of the United States
District Court. at Richmond decided
the case against Dunlop. There were
other points. however. to consider
! which were. perhaps. OF more signi-
! canoe than the Sunday signing uues-
ton. and the trial Judge did not give
his opinion on this particular point A
ruling by tho upper court would. at
this time. be of peculiar interest in yir-
gina.
Briefly, the case In question is this:
, Dunlop secured the option in April,
1915. and dated 1t, not April II. which
would have been Sunday. but April Q.
which was Friday. y few days later.
Baker flied a petition In voluntary
Bankruptcy was duly adiudged bank
| rnpt, and trustees appointed. The land
| upon which Dunlop had secured the
option was surrendered as an asset
! HAlNER SAYS HIS ATTORNEYS
! WE'RE NOT FULLY INFORMED
Then Dunlop appeared Oh the scene
/ 10 set up his rights under tho option
tic said that he had agreed TO assume
| the payment of any debts that might
be due under deeds Of trusts on the
place, and Was willing to carry out his
I pledge as given, in the event the bank
rupicy court recognized his rights
under the agreement. Baker Joined in
tho petition
At later date. however, Baker all
lcGed that his attorneys. when he Joined
IN ilundop's petition. were not in pos
session OF all the facts the in case.
that the option was signed on sunday
April IL, instead OF Friday. April ?.
and was. therefore. null and void. and
'hat Dunlop knew when the option was
executed that he fBaker had deter
mined 10 fiic petition I'm bankruptcy.
ana that Dunlop had the instrumont
signed April in order 10 make I, ante
Date his first steps in bankruptcy.
! MIS- Baker joined with her husband
SAVING that tho option was invalid for
J inc season that her name did not nm
pear IN IN" hody OF ii, and that the
Iand was worth much moro than tho
Fi:.o"o She called on the court for
protection. i'
OTHER ISSUES ARE
INVOLVED IN TSsUE
.Nnt alone on the issue OF Sunday
ISiEhihC. hut on other points raised hn
Siacs. Judge Waddill decided ar.i,u,
Dunlop, and ordered the land snII -
nunnc auction for the satisfaction of
! BAKERS creditors The land w,s s.,,
M consideration OF something n,ora
IMAM $4,000. more than enough 70 49,
all Of Bakers debts. w pay
attorneys for Dunlop hold TIN.
neither the common law OF Ereiaaa
nor the statutory law Of any Await.
commonwealth forbids the sirnina, ;.
an asreemen, on Sunday. and cite
m"hE cases in proof of that copten.
ton. N'''eh-
The Virginia statute reads as fol-
be found laboring at any trade or Ill
| ing.' or employ his apprentices mr. sar
| wants IN labor or other business Nv
ccpt household or other work of No
| cesslty or charity. he shall be deomod
guilty of misdemeanor."
| The court will convene for tbo NJ,
term TINS morning ut 10 o'clock viii
judge" fritchnrd. Knapp. Woods and
Johnson III attendance. Judge John
son WHO is from the Western Dis-
trict OF South Carolina. will sit In D;ni'
mond for the first time. havin, ~, ~,
recently appointed district ,mdpe ton
the ncwly formed South Carolina dta
trict. The court is expected IN rer,.i,
IN session Tor more than a month ava
may hand down many important do
ciSions "e