King v. Fleming

• Decision Date: 31 January 1874
• Citation: King v. Fleming, 72 Ill. 21, 1874 WL 8749, 22 Am.Rep. 131 (Ill. 1874)
• Parties: JAMES W. KINGv.JAMES M. FLEMING.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

72 Ill. 21

1874 WL 8749 (Ill.)

22 Am.Rep. 131

JAMES W. KING

v.JAMES M. FLEMING.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1874.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Vermilion county; the Hon. JAMES STEELE, Judge, presiding.

Mr. E. S. TERRY, for the appellant.

Mr. WILLIAM H. MALLORY, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:

This action was brought on a promissory note made in the State of Indiana. The defense urged is, it was executed on Sunday, and, by the laws of that State, it is made unlawful to engage “in common labor” or “usual avocations, works of charity or necessity, only, excepted.” Hence it is insisted the note is void.

The testimony shows the note was written sometime during the week prior to the day it bears date. It was, in fact, signed by appellant on Sunday, but not delivered to appellee until Monday. There is no evidence as to when the other maker signed his name. In the absence of proof, it will be presumed it was done on a day when it was lawful to do secular labor. It is proven appellee had no knowledge, when he received the note, it had been executed on Sunday by either maker.

In Reynolds v. Stevenson, 4 Ind. 619, it was held, the making of a promissory note on Sunday was “common labor,” within the meaning of the statute of that State which forbids the transaction of all secular business on Sunday.

A replevin bond executed on Sunday was declared to be void, its execution being in violation of the statute which forbids “common labor” on that day. Lusk v. Clemmens, 7 Blackf. 479.

In a later decision of that court, it was declared a sale of goods made on Sunday was void, as being against the statute, yet it was held, the parties, by subsequently acting upon the contract as a valid and subsisting agreement, might ratify it, on the principle that contracts made on Sunday form an exception to the general rule that void contracts are not susceptible of ratification. Banks v. Werts, 13 Ind. 203; Adams v. Gay, 19 Verm. 358.

In Love v. Wells, 25 Ill. 503, it was held, a deed, though signed and acknowledged on Sunday, if delivered on another day, is valid, whatever may be the effect on the acknowledgment, for the reason it did not take effect as a deed until after delivery.

The execution of a promissory note is not complete until it is delivered to the payee, or some one for him. The decisions seem to be, promissory notes will not be void, though signed on Sunday, if delivered on another day. The principle is, such contracts are not tainted with any general illegality, but are illegal only as to the time in which they are entered into. It is not sufficient, to avoid them, that they may have grown out of a transaction on Sunday. They must be finally closed on that day.

The weight of authority seems to be, although such...