Case Name: Clough v. Goggins
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1875-04-07
Citations: 40 Iowa 325
Docket Number: 
Parties: Clough v. Goggins.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 325–326

Head Matter:
Clough v. Goggins.
1. Contract: invalid tom: promissory Note. Contracts made on Sunday are invalid. A promissory note of that date will not support an action.
2. Practice: judicial Notice. Courts will take judicial notice of the fact, when the day of the execution of a contract occurs on Sunday. ■
3. -: DEMURRER. The defense that a note was executed on Sunday ■ may he raised by demurrer.
Appeal from Hardin District Court.
Wednesday, April 7.
ActioN upon two promissory notes made by defendant, Oct. 1, 1871, and payable to plaintiff. A demurrer to the petition, on tbe ground that it shows the notes were executed on Sunday, was overruled. Defendant refusing’ to farther plead, a judgment was rendered against bim, from which he appeals.
J. H. Socoles and Porter & Moir, for appellant.
Huff do Peed, for appellee.

Opinion:
Beck, J.
I. Contracts made in this State upon Sunday are void, and a promissory note made upon that day will not support an action. Pike v. King, 16 Iowa, 50; Sayre Wheeler, 31 Iowa, 112.
II. Courts will judicially take notice of the coincidence of days of the week with days of the ' month, as what days fall upon Sunday. 1 Greenleaf's Ev.,§5; T Phillips' Ev. (Cowen & Hill's, and Edwards' notes), p. 625.
III. Matters of rvhich judicial notice is taken need not be stated in a pleading. Code, § 2722. This is a common law rule. 1 Chit, on Pleading, p. 245.
The court will take judicial notice that the day upon which the notes in suit were executed, October 1,1871, was Sunday. In order to bring that fact to the consideration of the court, it was not necessary it should be alleged in' any pleading subsequent to the petition, for the petition, interpreted by the judicial knowledge of the court, disclosed the fact. The petition then, as it contained matter which defeated plaintiff's claim, was rightly assailed by the demurrer, which should have been sustained. The judgment of the District Court must, therefore, be
REVERSED.