14 N.H. 133 (N.H. 1843), Allen v. Deming
|Citation:||14 N.H. 133|
|Opinion Judge:||GILCHRIST, J.|
|Party Name:||ALLEN v. DEMING.|
|Attorney:||Carleton, for the defendant. Morrison, for the plaintiff. Wilcox, in reply,|
|Court:||Superior Court of New Hampshire|
The execution and delivery of a promissory note on Sunday, is "business" of a person's "secular calling," and as such is prohibited under a penalty, by the act of December 24th, 1799, and the note is void.
Whether a note given for the price of goods bought on Sunday be void in the hands of an innocent indorsee, quœ re?
An action cannot be maintained if it have no other foundation than a contract made on Sunday.
The defendant bought a quantity of shingles on Sunday, and at the same time gave his promissory note to the seller for a part of the price. He permitted the shingles to remain with the seller for about a month, and then took them away. --Held, that the contract was complete on Sunday, and was void.
Where a party purchases goods on Sunday, and takes possession of them on a subsequent day, whether he is liable for their value on a quantum meruit, quæ re?
ASSUMPSIT upon a promissory note, dated on the 31st day of March, 1838, made by the defendant, payable to one Ira Coffin or order, and by him indorsed.
It appeared in evidence that the note was given for a part of the purchase money for a quantity of shingles; that the contract for the shingles was made on the Sabbath, and the note executed and delivered on the same day, but dated on the day previous. The shingles were at Coffin's, where they remained for about a month, when the defendant took them away and sold them.
The defendant contended that the note, being made on the Sabbath, was void and incapable of ratification, and that, being void, no indorsement of it could vest a right of action in an indorsee. But the court instructed the jury that the acts of the defendant in taking and selling the shingles on a subsequent day were a ratification of the contract, and that he could not after that avoid the note because it was made on the Sabbath.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant moved for a new trial.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP