Smith v. Case

1. Contract made on Sunday is void. 2. Effect of subsequent ratification, or subsequent contract.

Appeal from Benton County. Smith loaned to defendant, Case, $300, for which Case executed and delivered his promissory note on Sunday; and on a week day he afterwards made a promise to pay plaintiff the money so received at the making of the note. The defendant demurred to the complaint, because it appeared that the note was executed on Sunday. The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer, and plaintiff appealed. 1st. Subsequent promise need not be in -writing; no statute requiring it. (Chit, on Cont., 66; 9 Pick., 341.) 2d. The subsequent promise rendered the respondent liable on demand. (Chit, on Cont., 445, note z; Id., 447, note h ; 448, 789, note h; Story on Cont., paragraph 619; 8 Gray, 553; 10 Cush., 258 ; 2 Parsons on Cont., 262. “ G ” “ H.") 4th. A note executed on Sunday, being prohibited by statute, is void: 6 Watts, 231 ; 13 Met., 284; 16 Pick., 247; 13 Shipley, 464; 12 Met., 24; 7 Blackf., 479; 24 N. Y., 353; 10 Met., 363; and either party may show that fact: 5 Mass., 296. 5th. The new promise can give no original cause of action, if the obligation upon which it was founded could not have been enforced at law. (2 Sandf., 311; Edwards on Bills, 339 ; 1 Parsons Con., 361; 14 Wend., 97.) 6th. There was no consideration for the new promise, and none alleged. (12 Johns., 190; 4 Johns., 235.) A moral obligation is not a sufficient consideration. (Chit. Cont., 46-7; 2 Johns., 277.) 7th. "When the parties are in pari delicto the courts will not interfere to assist either. (12 Met., 25; 17 Mass., 257.)