Case Name: Avery and another against Stewart and others
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1816-11
Citations: 2 Conn. 69
Docket Number: 
Parties: Avery and another against Stewart and others.
Judges: TkumbuIiX, J. was of the same opinion.
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 69–84

Head Matter:
Avery and another against Stewart and others.
New-Haven,
November, 1816.
THIS was an action on a promissory note of the following icnour:
“ Lisbon, December 6th, 1815.
For value received, we jointly and severally promise “ Samuel Jlvery and Son, in sixty days from date, seven “ hundred thirty-four dollars, seventy-six cents, in cotton 'e yarn, at ten per cent, below the wholesale factory prices, to iS be delivered at the Lisbon Cotton-Factory store.
“ Josiah Rose, as Agt. L. C. F.
“ Alexander Stewart.”
The defendants pleaded in bar, that the 4th day of February 1816, was Sunday ; that on the next day, at noon, they gave notice to the plaintiffs, at JVorwich, that they, the defendants, were ready to deliver said cotton yarn agreeably to the terms of the note, and requested the plaintiffs to attend at the Lisbon Cotton-Factory store, and receive payment; that the plaintiffs refused to attend for that purpose, and declared that they w0uld have nothing to do with the business ; that the defendants, hav ing waited at the store until the uttermost convenient hour of the day, did then, viz-, between S o'clock. P. M. and sun-set, offer and tender to the plaintiffs, in cotton yarn, of a good and merchantable quality, warp and woof, at ten per cent, below the wholesale factory prices, in value seven hundred thirty-four dollars, seventy-six cents, that is to say, 10 lb. No. 20. — 10 lb. No. 19. &c. [specifying the numbers, and the weight of each,] in full payment and satisfaction of the note in suit; which the plaintiffs refused to receive j and that the defendants carefully deposited said yarn, thus tendered, in said stoic, and there left the same for the use and benefit of the plaintiffs, as their proper goods and estate. The plaintiffs traversed this plea ; on which issue was joined.
Where a promissory note, or other obligation, is payable in a certain number of days from the date, the day of the date is to be excluded in the computation of the time.
Where a promissory note, not negotiable, was made payable in sixty days Cram date. and it fell due on
Sunday, it was held, that a tender on the Monday following was good. Where payment is to be made, by contract, in specific articles, on a day certain, though the creditor is entitled to a delivery in such season as to enable him to examine and take an account of tire articles before sun-set; yet if the debtor is present at the place of delivery, prepared, in all respects, to deliver the articles in sufficient season, and the creditor neglects to attend to receive them, a tender after sun-set, by day-light, will be good.
Where a promissory7 note was made payable “ in cotton yam at the wholesale factory pri - ees,” it was held, that evidence of the usage- of manufacturers and dealers in that article, was admissible, to shew that by tlro.se terms was meant a co-tain scale of prices different from the actual wholesale pices ⅛ market
The cause was tried at New-London, September term 1816, before Edmond. Brainard and Gould. Js.
On the trial, it was claimed by the plaintiffs, that by the words in the note (i at ten per cent, below the wholesale factory prices,’’ was meant by the parties, ten per cent, below the actual wholesale prices of cotton yarn in the market, at the time when the note became due; and they offered evidence, on their part, to shew what the wholesale factory prices in market actually were at that time.
The defendants, on their part, contended, and offered evidence to prove, that long antecedent to the execution of the note in suit, the manufacturers of cotton yarn in this state, and in the neighbouring state of Rhode-lsland, at their several factories, had, for the benefit of their trade, and to render that branch of business more useful, a common usage, by which all cotton yarns manufactured for sale, were to be assorted, by a standard, according to their weight and quality, and packed in bundles, and numbered, with printed tickets or labels annexed, designating the number ; that the price of number 12 was eighty-four cents, and to each number above 12 there was an addition of four cents, and from each number under 12 a deduction of three cents ; and that the tariff so adopted was advertised, published and set up in all the cotton yarn factories, and designated by the appellation of « The wholesale factory prices,” which was well known to the parties at the time of making the contract. And the defendants claimed, that by the words “ ten per cent. below the wholesale factory prices,” was meant the wholesale factory prices designated by the tariff.
The plaintiffs further claimed, and introduced evidence to prove, that the pretended tender of cotton yarn made by the defendants, was actually made on the 5th day of February 1816, after sun-set, at so late a period that the plaintiffs could not have had time to take an account of the yarn.
The defendants then introduced evidence to prove, that on the forenoon of that day, they called on the plaintiffs at Norwich, and informed them, that they, the defendants, should, on the same day, at the Lisbon Cotton-Factory store, tender the yarn specified in the note; and that the plaintiffs replied, they should do nothing about it.
The charge of the court to the jury was as follows: “ Whether the quantity of cotton yarn offered was sufficient to meet the contract, must depend, in some measure, upon the price at which it was to be delivered. If by wholesale factory prices, was meant by the parties, the ticket prices, and a tender was actually made by the defendants on the 5th day of February 1816, of a sufficient quantity of cotton yarn, according to those prices deducting ten per cent., and of the stipulated sorts and quality, as alleged in the plea in bar, your verdict will be for the defendants, though the yarn tendered would not, according to the actual wholesale market prices, with such deduction, amount to the full sum expressed in the note. And if by the wholesale factory prices, was meant by the parties, the actual wholesale market prices, at the time when the yarn was to be delivered ; yet if there was a Sufficient quantity tendered to satisfy the note according to the actual wholesale market prices, after deducting ten per cent., and of the stipulated sorts and quality, as alleged in the plea in bar, your verdict will, in that case also, be for the defendants. But if there was no actual tender as before stated ; or if the amount tendered would not, according to the first mentioned or last mentioned prices, be sufficient, after deducting ten per cent., to satisfy the note; your verdict will be for the plaintiffs. As to the time of day at which a tender must be made, where the day and place of payment are appointed in the contract, as they are in this case ; the court is of opinion, that if the debtor is ready to tender, and is present and waiting to make the tender, at ihc. day and place, in season for making and completing the tender before sun-set, and the creditor is absent so that a tender cannot be made to him in person, a tender after sun-set, by day-light, is good.”
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiffs moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the issue was immaterial. They also moved for a new trial, on the ground of a misdirection. The questions arising on these motions were reserved for the consideration and advice of the nine Judges.
Cleavdaiiti, for (he plaintiffs,
contended, i. That the day of the date of the note ought to be included in the computation of the time which it had to run ; and in that case, it would become payable on Saturday, the 3d of February, and a tender on any subscrpient day, would unquestionably be bad. Castle ft al. v. liurdill ft ah 3 Trrm lit]). 623.
2. That if the day of the date were to be excluded in the computation, the note would become due on Sunday, and a tender, to he available, should be made on Saturday.
That admitting the tender to have been made on the right day, it was not made in proper season.
4. That the court erred in receiving extrinsic evidence to shew what was meant by “ wholesale factory prices,” and in submitting that question to the jury as a matter of fact; the construction of a contract being matter of law only, and exclusively within the province of the court to determine.
Halsey and Sherman, contra.

Opinion:
Swtvt, Ch. J .
Where a note, or other obligation, is payable in a certain number of days from the date, the day of 1 he date is always excluded in the computation of the time. This note was, then, payable on the sixtieth day after the date, which, it is agreed, was Sunday.
It has been argued, that as tills note was payable within sixty days, the defendant, as it was unlawful for him to tender payment, on the last day, because it was Sunday, was bound to pay it on the preceding day. But where a note is made payable within a certain number of days, the promissor is not bound to tender payment till the last day : and no suit can ever be maintained against him for non-payment prior to the hist day. Of course, a note pnvnhle within a certain number yi days, is payable on the last day in the same manner, as if that had been specified to be the day of payment.
If a note should be made payable on Sunday, in express terms, it would be void, because it would be a contract to do an unlawful act. But if it be payable at a future day, which, by calculation, is found tobe Sunday, and the parties did not intend to make it payable on Sunday, then it would not be void. The question, then, is, if a note falls due on Sunday, whether the tender must be on the preceding or succeeding day. The obligor cannot be bound to tender on the preceding day; for no man is bound to perform a contract before the time of payment; and no action can ever lie against him for non-performance before that time. Though he cannot perform the contract on the day it falls due, because it would be an unlawful act, yet that does not exonerate him from his obligation. It would be unjust to subject him to pay damages for the non-performance of a contract when it was unlawful to do it. The only way, then, to do justice to both parties, is, to permit the tender to be made on the succeeding day | and this is conformable to a general principle of law, that where the obligor cannot perform a contract according to the literal terms of it, he shall perform it as nearly as possible. This violates no principle, and does justice to all the parties. I think, then, the correct rule is, that when an obligation falls due on Sunday, the obligor shall be bound to tender a performance of it on the succeeding day.
It is said, in the case of bills of exchange and negotiable notes, where days of grace are allowed, that they are by the custom of merchants, sanctioned by law, payable on the third day of grace $ yet if that day happens to be Sunday, then they are payable on the preceding day ; and that this principle applies to the case in question. But the same custom of merchants, which has indulged three days of grace, after a note is due. if that day is not Sunday, — allows but two where it is Sunday ; and it being an indulgence, it is perfectly consistent to require payment on the second day of grace, to avoid giving four days of grace : but this is a very different thing from requiring a note to be paid before it is due. .
By the words s: wholesale factory price," could not have been intended the cash price, but must have referred to some general rule known to cotton manufacturers. It was, therefore, proper to leave it to the jury to ascertain by the evidence, as a matter of fact, what was the wholesale factory price.
The tender was made at a proper and reasonable time, under all the circumstances.
I would not advise a new trial.
TkumbuIiX, J. was of the same opinion.
Edmond, J.
In this case, sundry exceptions are taken to f-he charge given to the jury ; and there is also a motion in arrest, founded on the supposed insufficiency of the defend ant's plea in bar.
I am satisfied with the charge given by the court to the jury j and should not advise a new trial on that account.
What is the legal import of the words " wholesale factory prices" used by the parties in the contract, was not the question ; but, to what standard, by the use of those words, the parties intended to refer, by which to regulate the price of the cotton yarn.
Where there is an ambiguity, which cannot be satisfied without going out of the instrument, as where there is a devise to a person by name, and there is more than one of the same name ; of a farm, and there are several answering to the. same description, &c,, it is a question of fact, not of law s testimony is admissible ; and the quest ion is a proper one to he submitted to a jury.
As to the tender. W here payment is to be made by contract, in specified articles, on a day certain, the creditor is reasonably entitled to such a tender as will enable him, if he chusc to do it, to examine the articles, and see whether they comport: with the articles stipulated to be paid in quantity and quality, before lie is bound to receive them, in satisfaction of bis claim. If, however, the debtor is present at the time and place, ready to deliver the articles corres, ponding in all respects with the terms of the contract, in season for such an examination, and waiting for that purpose, and to make a tender, the creditor cannot have right, by any act or neglect of his own. to deprive the debtor of his privilege to make a tender in satisfaction of his debt in all that day j and that being done in the manner stated, the contract is not only reasonably, but literally, complied with. on the debtor's part ; he is not chargeable with a breach of contract; am! if the creditor suffers an inconvenience or loss, it is to be imputed only to his misfortune or negligence.
In respect to ¡ he construction of the words in the obligation, " in sixty days from dale*'* By the plain import of the words, the day on which it is dated is excluded ; otherwise, a note payable in one day from date, would be a note payable on demand, and a suit thereon might be instituted immediately. With this construction, the sixtieth day from date was the Sabbath : and the question arises whether the note was payable on Saturday or Monday ? If payable on Saturday, the plea in bar is insufficient; otherwise, not.
On which of the days a tender in such cases ought to be made, is not so important, in my view, as that the question should be settled and at rest.
It however appears to me, that Saturday was the day on which a tender ought to have been made, and fhat the rule should be so settled.
In a contract to perform within a stipulated number of days, it is not usual to enter into a minute calculation of the number of Sabbaths that may intervene, and which will go to make up the number of days agreed on. The understanding of parties is, to take the days in succession as they arise, wild her Sabbalk, or not; and there is no more reason for casting the last Sabbath, than the first, out of the number. None, by the terms of the contract, are to be excluded •, nol-is an exclusion necessary to the execution or validity of the contract. The fair intent of the parties to the contract is to be presumed to be (and there is nothing in the contract to rebut the presumption,) that it should he performed at a time when it might be lawfully performed ; and that that time should be in sixty days is expressly stipulated, and will admit of no other construction. The obligation as to the number of days is dear, explicit and unconditional. The debtor's obligation is absol ute. He is, then, by the terms of the contract, to have the uttermost convenient time, within the number of days limited, in which the act can lawfully he done, and no longer. To extend it to Monday, is to make a contract for the parties, not contemplated, and subjects the indorser, if any, to delay of notice of non-payment; for K > he tender maybe made in all Monday, the sixiy-second dav will be the first day he can have notice, or a right of recurrence to the indorser.
I would therefore advise, that the plea in bar is insufficient, and that the motion in arrest ought to prevail.
Smith, J,
There is no doubt that a contract to be performed on a particular day of the month in future, which turns out to be Sunday, is to be performed on the day following. The only doubt which I have felt, in the present case, has been, whether the obligor, by contracting to perform within sixty days, has not bound himself, at all events, to perform within that lime, so that if the last day is Sunday, he is still bound to do it within the stipulated period, by taking the last convenient legal time. But on reflection, I am inclined to construe a contract of this kind to be a contract to be performed on the sixtieth day ; and if so, that being Sunday, it may be performed the day following.
Bkainarh, J, concurred fully in the opinion delivered by €h. J. Swift.
B Aim win, J.
The day of the date being excluded, the note fell due on Sunday. The question then is, whether it was payable on Saturday, or on Monday. It is agreed, that bills of exchange and negotiable notes, which fall due on Sunday, are payable, and must be demanded, on Saturdaybut it is claimed, that this is confined to negotiable instruments, which, by the law merchant, are limited to two days when the third falls on Sunday. But no adjudged case is adduced in support of it. I see no reason for such a distinction. The days of grace are now considered part of the time of credit j and a negotiable note for sixty days is as really a note for sixtv-three, as it would be, if so expressed in any other instrument. The time of payment is, by computation, as certainly fixed, as if the day of the month was precisely named. When the time of payment is ascertained, the debt- or is entitled to the uttermost convenient time to make it; and at that lime, the creditor may demand it. Each has his rights. On Sunday, payment cannot legally be made. What, then, is the uttermost convenient time within which payment can legally be made ? It appears to me, it is Saturday : for it yon withhold it till Monday, you extend the contract beyond the agreement of the parties. 4
This is analogous to the principles acknowledged by all, to be applicable to contracts to pay money into banks, to transfer stocks, Ac. on a particular day. The party bound to pay or transfer, is entitled to the uttermost convenient time ; but that is limited to banking hours in the one case, and to the time the books are kept open in the other. This may be 12, or 2 o'clock, and the party is thereby cut short of a part of the day or time within which he stipulated to perform his contract. But he cannot, therefore, claim another day. That would extend the contract. So in this case, he is entitled to the uttermost convenient time within the sixty days in which payment could be legally made. It could not be legally made on Sunday ; therefore, it must be made on Saturday.
Goddard, J. concurred in the opinion delivered by Ch. J. Swift, on all the points.