Berry v. O'Neill

• Decision Date: 19 June 1918
• Citation: 104 A. 25
• Parties: BERRY v. O'NEILL et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

104 A. 25

BERRY

v. O'NEILL et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 19, 1918.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from District Court of Atlantic City.

Action by Frank A. Berry against Robert J. O'Neill and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued February term, 1918, before SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, and MINTURN, JJ.

U. G. Styron, of Atlantic City, for appellants. Lee F. Washington, of Atlantic City, for appellee.

TRENCHARD, J. The plaintiff below brought this suit to recover for services rendered as architect in drawing plans and specifications and taking estimates from various contractors for a frame house and brick garage for the defendants. The trial judge, sitting without a jury, rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed.

We are of the opinion that the judgment must be affirmed. At the trial it appeared that the services were rendered and that the claim therefor was unpaid. The defendants' sole contention on this appeal is that the evidence showed that the contract of employment, upon which the judgment rests, was made upon a Sunday, and was therefore void.

In general, a contract made on Sunday is void. Rosenblum v. Schachner, 84 N. J. Law, 525, 87 Atl. 99, and cases there cited. But the mere carrying on of negotiations on Sunday will not invalidate a contract completed on a secular day. The final consummation of a contract on Sunday is necessary to bring it within the prohibition of the Sunday statutes. Burr v. Nivison, 75 N. J. Eq. 241, 72 Atl. 72, 138. Am. St. Rep. 554, 20 Ann. Cas. 35.

Tested by this rule, we think the contract of employment in the present case was not invalid. True, there was an interview on a Sunday between the parties at which the probable cost of various kinds of houses was discussed, and the plaintiff's customary charge for drawing plans and supervision was asked and stated. But the defendants had not yet acquired a lot upon which to build, nor decided upon the kind and cost of the house desired, and the Sunday interview terminated to give the plaintiff a chance to "think it over" and the defendants an opportunity to purchase a lot and decide upon the character of house required. Later the defendants acquired a lot, and determined to build, not only a house of a designated cost, but also a garage, and the interview at which the employment of the plaintiff to plan these was agreed upon was on a week day. Obviously, in this state of the proof, it cannot be said that...