Sec 383

When a contract has been executed, neither party, as a general rule, can recover from the other what has been transferred, or in .any way disturb the rights which have been acquired under the contract. The contract, in other words, cannot, after it has been executed, be overhauled on account of its solemnization on Sunday.3 And when a debt has been paid on Sunday, the money cannot be recovered back.4

Sec 384

It has been held in New Hampshire and Iowa that when goods are sold and delivered on Sunday, and there has been a subsequent refusal of the purchaser to pay, if the vendor seizes the property in the hands of the purchaser, the vendor will be compelled to restore it in an action of replevin;5 and it has been held in Statutes do not affect executed contract.

So as to Sunday transfer of property.

1 Hilton v. Houghton, 35 Me. 143; Clough v. Davis, 9 N. H. 500; Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 Vt. 379; Hill p. Dunham, 7 Gray, 543; Com. v. Kendig, 2 Barr, 448; Sherman v. Roberts, 1 Grant, 261; Love v. Wells, 25 Ind. 503; Flanagan v. Meyer, 41 Ala. 132; Dohoney v. Dohoney, 7 Bush, 217. But see contra as to note of surety, Parker v. Pitts, 25 Ind. 598.

2 Benj. on Sales, 3d Am. ed. sec 553; Plaisted v. Palmer, 63 Me. 676; Smith v. Bean, 15 N. H. 577; Lyon v. Strong, 6 Vt. 216; Hulet v. Stratton, 5 Cush. 539; Robeson v. French, 12 Met. 24; Kinney v. McDermot, 55 Iowa, 674; Gunderson v. Richardson, 56 Iowa, 56; Finley v. Quirk, 9 Minn. 194.

3 Supra, sec 352, 377; Benj. on Sales, 3d Am. ed. sec 577; Greene v. Godfrey, 44 Me. 25; Allen v. Deming, 14 N. H. 133; Smith v. Bean, 15 N. H. 577; Hall v. Costello, 48 N. H. 176; Myers v. Meinrath, 101 Mass. 368; Horton v. Buffington, 105 Mass. 399; Hall v. Corcoran, 107 Mass. 259; Finn v. Donahue, 35 Conn. 216; Shuman p. Shu-man, 27 Penn. St. 90; Foreman v. Ahl, 55 Penn. St. 325; Chesnut v. Har-baugh, 78 Penn. St. 473; Kinney v. McDermot, 55 Iowa, 674; Beauchamp v. Comfort, 42 Miss. 94.

4 Supra, sec 352, 377; Johnson v. Willis, 7 Gray, 164. That there may be a recovery on a quantum meruit for services rendered under a contract made on a Sunday, see Thomas v. Hatch, 53 Wis. 296.

5 In Smith v. Bean, 15 N. H. 577, referring to a contract of sale made on Sunday, it is said: "The transaction being illegal, the law leaves the parties to suffer the consequences of their illegal acts. The contract is void so far as it is attempted to be made the foundation of legal proceedings. The law will not interfere to assist the vendor to recover the price. The contract is void for any such purpose. It will not sustain an action by the vendee upon any warranty or fraud in the sale. It is void in that respect. The principle.

Alabama and Arkansas that a vendee retaining goods after a Sunday purchase is liable in trover, after demand and refusal.1 - The prevalent opinion is that the fact that goods sold and delivered, but not paid for, on Sunday are retained by the purchaser on Monday does not, without a fresh promise based on the detention, sustain an action by the vendor for the price of goods sold and delivered.2 But a fresh promise, or even recognition of indebtedness, coupled with detention of goods, will support an assumpsit.3 Hence, while the mere retention on Monday of goods obtained on Sunday involves no promise to pay for them, and while the vendor, without exposing himself to an action of replevin, cannot reclaim the property,4 yet, if after demand the purchaser admits the vendor's ownership, but refuses to return, he may be made liable in trover; or an admission of the vendor's ownership, with a request to retain the goods, may be the basis of a fresh assumpsit. But no mere ratification of the Sunday sale as such will give it effect.5 shows that the law will not aid the vendor to recover possession of the property if he has parted with it. The vendee has the possession as of his own property by the assent of the vendor, and the law leaves the parties where it finds them. If the vendor should attempt to retake the property without process, the law, finding that the vendee had a possession which could not be controverted, would give a remedy for the violation of that possession." S. P. Kinney v. McDermott, 55 Iowa, 674. To the same effect is 2 Parsons, 764; Meader v. White, 66 Me. 90. As to distinctive rule in New York and Ohio see supra, sec 382.

1 Dodson v. Harris, 10 Ala. 566; Tucker v. West, 29 Ark. 386. It has been held in Vermont that when goods are sold and are delivered on Sunday, the vendor may on the next day demand them, and in case their return is refused, this is regarded as a purchase on the prior terms. Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358.

2 Simpson v. Nichols, 3 M. & W. 240; 5 M. & W. 702, overruling Williams v. Paul, 6 Bing. 653; Myers v. Meinrath, 101 Mass. 366; Cranson v. Goss, 107 Mass. 441; Ellis v. Hammond, 57 Ga. 179; but see contra, Allen v. Deming,.

14 N. H. 133; Boutelle v. Melandy, 19 N. H. 196; Tucker v. West, 29 Ark. 386.

3 Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358; Sar-geant v. Butts, 21 Vt. 99; Sumner v. Jones, 24 Vt. 317. See Harrison v. Colton, 31 Iowa, 16; and see fully Benj. on Sales, 3d Am. ed. sec 558, where these authorities are discussed.

4 See supra, sec 352.

5 Infra, sec 389, and see in addition to cases above cited, Day v. McAllister,.

15 Gray, 433; Bradley v. Rea, 14 Allen, 20; 103 Mass. 188; Finn v. Donahue, 35 Conn. 216; Reeves v. Butcher, 2 Vroom, 224. In Moseley v. Vanhoozer, 6 Lea (Tenn.), 286, A. agreed to buy a yoke of oxen of B. The terms of the sale were agreed upon on Sunday, but A. was to see the condition of the oxen before he was absolutely bound. He.