Sec 385

The English statute, as has been seen, prohibits labor in the "ordinary calling" of the parties prohibited. Under this and cognate statutes isolated private contracts made by parties outside of their ordinary calling are not invalidated.1 It was held in 1808 that a private sale of a horse on Sunday, when not in the seller's ordinary calling, he not being a tradesman of that class, is not void by the statute;2 but this has now been virtually overruled.3 And it has been further held that a contract of hiring made on a Sunday between a farmer and a laborer is not in conflict with the statute.4 Proprietors of stage coaches, so far as concerns their contracts with passengers, are not within the terms of the act.8

When statute relates to "ordinary" calling, it does not invalidate collateral contracts.

saw them the next day, and being satisfied with them, removed them. It was held that the contract was not complete on Sunday, and if a contract made on Sunday is to be held void, it must be technically complete in that day.

1 George v. George, 47 N. H. 27; Hazard v. Day, 14 Allen, 487; Bloom v. Richards, 2 Oh. St. 388.

2 Drury v. Defontaine, 1 Taunt. 131. See Bloxsome- v. Williams, 3 B. & C. 232.

3 Smith v. Sparrow, 4 Bing. 86; Fen-nell v. Ridler, 5 B. & C. 406.

4 R. v. Whitnash, 7 B. & C. 596.

5 Sandiman v. Breach, 7 B. & C. 96. Under the South Carolina statute, a mortgage which has been executed on a Sunday has been held to be valid. Hellams v. Abercrombie, 15 S. C. 110. In this case Simpson, C. J., said: " In Shaw v. M'Combs, 2 Bay, 232, this expression is used: ' Sunday is not a day in law - dies dominicus et non dies juridi-cus - consequently all temporal business transaction on that day is null and void.' But this was only an inference of the reporter not sustained by the facts. Under these cases it appears that there is nothing in the common law which renders this contract void. 2 Parsons on Contr. 757.

"Is the contract void by virtue of any statute of the state ? The act of 1712 is the only act on the subject. That act forbids tradesmen, workmen, laborers, etc., from exercising any worldly labor, business, or work in their ordinary calling upon the Lord's day under a certain penalty.

"The execution of the mortgage now under consideration does not fall within the penalty of this act, and therefore void. It was not an act done within the ordinary calling of the parties. It was a casual and exceptional act, and in no way violated the act of 1712.

"Thefirst section of 29 Car. II. was very similar in its terms to the act of 1712. This section was construed in the cases of Drury v. Defontaine, 1 Taunt. 131, and in Bloxsome v. Williams, 3 B. & C. 232, not to embrace contracts made outside of the ordinary calling of the party. True, in one case decided a different doctrine was held, the construction above being regarded as too narrow, and contrary to the spirit of the act; but in the subsequent decisions, especially in the case of Rex v. Inhab. of Whitnash, 7 B. & C. 596, the decision in the case of Blox-soine v. Williams, supra, was reaffirmed, and a contract of hiring between a farmer and a laborer for a year, made on Sunday, was held valid. Such, in our opinion, is the proper construction of the act of 1712, incorporated in the General Statutes, p. 390.