636 LORD'S DAY Sunday from that which prevails elsewhere in Christendom ; and this is manifested equally in the provisions of law and in common usage. From early times the day was set apart as one not to he employed* in secular business, and hence came the maxim quoted hy Coke : Dies dominions non est juridicus. So early as in the 27th of Henry VI. (1449) an act was passed prohibiting fairs and markets on certain feast days, Easter Sunday, and " other Sundays." In the 1st of James I. (1603) dealers in leather were prohibited from exposing for sale shoes, &c., on Sundays ; and in the 1st of Charles I. (1625) a statute prohibited meetings of persons for any sports and pastimes out of their parish- es, or for " bull or bear baiting, common plays, interludes, or other unlawful games and exer- cises, within their parishes." But in the 29th of Charles II. (1678) the statute was passed which may be regarded as the foundation of all the present law on the subject, in England and in the United States. It enacted "that no tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, or other person whatsoever, shall do or exercise any worldly labor, business, or work of their ordi- nary callings, upon the Lord's day or any part thereof (works of necessity and charity only excepted);" and "that no person or persons whatsoever shall publicly cry, show forth, or expose to sale, any wares, merchandises, fruit, herbs, goods, or chattels whatsoever, upon the Lord's day or any part thereof." This act was followed by a series of decisions which, pro- ceeding upon the ground that all prohibitory and penal statutes must be construed rigor- ously, have certainly confined the operation of the statute within narrower limits than were intended. Thus, while it says that " no other person whatsoever" shall, &c., it has been held that, because general words following particular Avords must be construed as ejusdem generis, therefore the previous particular words, "no tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer," are to be taken as including all those to whom the statute applies ; and on this ground it was held by Lord Tenterden that drivers and pro- prietors of stage coaches are not included, and that a contract to carry a passenger in a stage coach on a Sunday is not unlawful in England. So, too, the words "any worldly labor" are, after some fluctuation, now controlled and limited by the subsequent words "or work of their ordinary callings;" and therefore one who sold a horse on Sunday was permitted to recover the price because it was not " the exer- cise of his ordinary calling." In this country we have but little nice construction of this kind applied to what are called, in common parlance, the Sunday laws, although the stat- utes for the most part speak of Sunday as the Lord's day. The Puritan colonists, if they did not introduce, at least adopted and established to the full extent of their influence, the idea that Sunday was the Christian sabbath, and that it was to be kept holy not merely by the absence of all labor, but by that of all amuse- ment. One reason for this probably was, al- though they may not have been conscious of its operation, an earnest desire to confirm and perpetuate the distinction, or rather the op- position and hostility, between them and the Roman Catholic church, and that English Epis- copal church which they considered as only the Roman church thinly disguised. Hence their customs in relation to Sunday were rigid to the last extreme, and their laws almost equally so. These laws remained in full force as long as they were sustained by the feelings and habits of the people. But the excessive sever- ity of the earliest years of our colonies could not be maintained either in usage or in law. There was a gradual relaxation, which by the time of the revolutionary war had become very considerable. When the colonies be- came states, the Sunday laws assumed a form which they have maintained substantially ever since ; although it is certain that the observance of these laws has become much less constant and universal than it was formerly, and viola- tions are now habitual and disregarded, which formerly would have been visited with imme- diate punishment. The laws, in their letter, are very similar in nearly all the states, and they provide generally, but with some diversity of language, that no persons shall engage in any labor, business, or work, excepting only works of necessity and charity, on the Lord's day. Among the questions which have arisen under these laws, the most important was, whether a contract made on Sunday in viola- tion of law was nevertheless valid, leaving the parties liable to punishment for their breach of the law ; but after some diversity of decision, the prevailing if not the universal conclusion now is, that the contract itself, by means of its illegality, is wholly void, conferring no rights and imposing no obligations upon any party. It is, however, admitted that a contract begun on Sunday, and agreed upon as to all its terms, but not in fact completed until the next day, is binding. Thus, if A agrees to sell an article to B for a certain price, and the whole bargain is arranged and agreed to on Sunday, and, in the execution of it, on Monday morning A gives to B the article and B gives to A his promis- sory note for the price, the property in the article passes, and the note is as valid as if the whole bargain had been made on Monday. But whether a bargain wholly made on Sunday, and therefore void thus far, can be rendered valid by a mere subsequent recognition, is un- certain on the authorities ; but their tendency is to the negative. So, too, it has been held that if a sale is made on Sunday and the prop- erty then delivered to the buyer, and the price is not then paid, the seller cannot maintain an action for the price, because the contract, be- ing void, imposed no obligation on the buyer ; and neither can the seller, if the buyer refuses to return the article, maintain an action for it or its value, because he has parted with the possession by his own wrongful act, and both
