Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/25

 y Ai, aouui, V. iBisH. 13 �Van IIoven v. Ieish. �(Uircuit Court, D. Minnesota. January, 1882.) �1. CoNT-MOT Kadb os SmiDAT — Affirmancb on a Webk Dat. �Ailjrmance on a week day of a contract of bargain and sale entered into on Sunday, and void for that reason, makes it valid. �The plaintiff and defendant, on May 8, 1880, entered into a con- tract for the sale and delivery of cattie, and $100 was paid the defend- ant on the contract. Subsequently this contract was rescinded, and another one entered into, varying some-what in its ternis, and the $100 retained by defendant as part performance. The defendant claims this latter contract was made on Sunday and is void. The plaintiff brings this action to recover damages for a f ailure to per- form a contract alleged to have been made on July 6th, a week day, which is substantially the contract claimed by defendant to have been made on Sunday. The defendant denies that any other con- tract was made except the one on Sunday. The case was tried by a jury, and verdict rendered for the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial ^3 made by the defendant. �W. P. Warner, for plaintiff. �Lamprey e James, for defendant. �NbiiSon, D. J. Two vital questions were submitted for the deter- mination of the jury : �(1) Was the contract, for breach of which damages are claimed, entered ■'nto on Sunday ? �(2) If the contract was entered into on Sunday, and void by the laws of Minnesota, was it afterwards reafflrmed on a week day? �The court stated to the jury "that by the laws of Minnesota con- tracts of a seeular character, and which are not works of necessity and charity, if finally consummated on Sunday, are void, and no action can be maintained, either on the contract or for the recovery of whatever may have been done under the contract;" also, "that contracts entered into on Sunday could be reaffirmed afterwards." The case was fairly put to the jury, and the two controlling issues left for them to pass upon. �The counsel for the defendant presented several instructions and requested the court to embrace them in its charge to the jury. They were all, with two exceptions, given in the language of counsel. The language of the other two was cbanged so as to permit the jury ��� �