A case was recently decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, on an appeal from Manitoba. Two junk dealers, who had practically a monopoly of this trade in Manitoba and elsewhere in the West, agreed to fix the price which they would pay for junk of various kinds. The agreement rendered their business more profitable than ever, and under it they were to divide the profits. One sued the other to account for profits, but it was held that no action would lie, because the agreement was really an illegal combination under the statute.' 6. Contracts made on common law rule is that contracts made on Sunday are valid. In England, the United States and certain of the Canadian provinces, however, contracts are generally illegal if made on Sunday. The Bills of Exchange Act, for instance, provides that a bill is not invalid by reason only that it bears date of a Sunday, or other non-juridical day; but apparently if the bill were given in pursuance of a contract which under the statute may be illegal if made on a Sunday, it would be void as between the immediate parties, and as to any person who takes it with notice; but the mere fact that it is dated on a Sunday would not be such a notice.
Under a Dominion statute 2 it was made unlawful for any person to carry on or to transact any business of his ordinary calling, except works of necessity or mercy, on the Lord's day, but this act goes on to pro vide that it shall not affect any existing provincial law on the subject. The act apparently would not apply in a particular province where, under the provincial law, druggists, tobacconists and fruit dealers kept open on Sunday. What may be a work of necessity or charity is a question of fact in each case, but any thing done to save life or preserve health or property, which must be done on a Sunday or not at all, would probably be considered a work of necessity. So also any act, the object of which is to relieve distress or suffering, or which relates to religious worship, would be an act of charity.
It has been held.in American cases that notes, deeds and mortgages which are signed on a Sunday, but which are not delivered on that day, are valid; but that on the contrary, if signed on a secular day and de livered on a Sunday, they are void, saving the rights of a bona fide holder for value of a negotiable in strument.
7. Contracts in restraint of in restraint of marriage are generally held to be against public policy, and are therefore void. A con tract not to marry a certain person; or not to marry anyone before attaining the age of twenty-one, or perhaps twenty-five, may be valid, in that it does not restrain marriage in general; but a contract not to marry anyone but a particular person would be void.
A widow or widower may contract not to marry a sec ond time, but a person may not contract to remain un married. A contract not to marry without the consent of parents, or during minority, would be valid, be cause the restraint is not unreasonable. A contract not to marry a Hebrew or a Roman Catholic would be valid. A contract not to marry until one has at tained the age of forty would be invalid, because it discourages matrimony. A bet by one person that he will not marry within a certain time is a wager, ar.d void.
Agreements to procure or negotiate marriage for reward, known as marriage brokerage contracts, are held to be contrary to public policy, and therefore void. Pollock remarks 1 that all such agreements are void, whether for procurement of marriage with a specified person, or of marriage generally, and serv ices rendered without request in procuring or forward ing a marriage (at all events a clandestine or improper one) are not merely of no consideration, but an illegal consideration for a subsequent promise of reward. It was said in an English case: 2 "Both ladies and gentlemen are frequently induced to promise not to marry any other persons but the objects of their pres ent passion; and if the law should not rescind such engagements, they would become prisoners for life, at the will of the most inexorable jailers—disappointed lovers." 8. Contracts in fraud of third contract is void if it tends to induce some third person to commit a breach of trust, or if it tends to defraud a third person. Contracts are opposed to public policy if they are opposed to open, upright and fair dealing, and contracts are void which place a person under an inducement to violate a confidence reposed in him, or which place him under a wrong influence, or under a temptation which injures the rights of third persons.
Thus an agreement to divide the profits of a fraudu lent scheme, or even to carry out some lawful object by means of an apparent trespass, breach of contract or breach of trust, is void. Thus, if A and B are in terested in common with other persons in a transaction which requires the good faith of all persons interested, and A and B make a secret agreement which is in tended to benefit them at the expense of the others, the agreement is void. Or if B, upon application of A, agrees to advance money to enable him (A) to buy certain goods of C ; B goes to C and pays him the money agreed upon, in order that A may get the goods ; A and C agree that A shall pay a further sum : this agreement between A and C is void, as it is a fraud upon B, who intended to relieve A from paying any part of the price.