The rule of commercial paper as affected by holidays has been applied for the sake of uniformity to other maturing contracts; Sieghert v. Stiles, 39 Wis. 533. In some states, as California, the Dakotas, Idaho, and Massachusetts, the statutes extend the time for the performance of all contracts, except works of charity or necessity, to the next following day ; but in Kentucky it was'held that there being nothing in the statute pro hibiting business transactions on a holiday, the performance of a contract was required according to its terms; National Mut. Ben. Ass'n v. Miller, 85 Ky. 88, 2 S. W. 900; and this, it has been said, is the reasonable and logical view, the doctrine of the Wisconsin case being probably founded upon the con fusion of holidays with Sundays; 29 Am. L. . Reg. 153.
The Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act (see NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS for the states in which it is in force) provides that when the day or the last day for doing any act required or permitted to be done "falls on Sunday or, on a holiday, the act may be done on the next succeeding secular or business day"; sec. 194.
Judicial proceedings are usually invalid on holidays, and in most of the state statutes such proceedings are expressly prohibited, but a mere statutory provision requiring that public offices be closed does not prevent the sitting of courts or the discharge of judicial duties by judges; People v. Kearney, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 129; which are valid unless prohibit ed by a statute ; Russ v. Gilbert, 19 Fla. 54.
The following acts have been held valid when wholly or partially done upon a holi day; a sheriff's sale; Crabtree v. Whiteselle, 65 Tex. 111; a criminal examination on which a commitment was based ; Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 175; giving a case to the jury in a trial for murder; State v. Sorenson, 32 Minn. 118, 19 N. W. 738; or trying a murder case ; Pender v. State, 12 Tex. App. 496; the conclusion of such trial and the conviction of the prisoner ; State v. Moore, 104 N. C. 743, 10 S. E. 183; Pfister v. State, 84 Ala. 432, 4 South. 395; entering a judgment by a justice of the peace ; Bear v. Youngman, 19 Mo. App. 41; Elrod v. Lum ber Co., 92 Tenn. 476, 22 S. W. 2; commenc ing a criminal trial; Dunlap v. State, 9 Tex. App. 179, 35 Am. Rep. 736; hearing a civil case ; Houston, E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. Hard ing, 63 Tex. 162; service of process ; Nichols v. Kelsey, 20 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 14; People v. Board of Sup'rs, 50 Hun 105, 3 N. Y. Supp. 751; notice of days of election ; Whitney v. Blackburn, 17 Or. 564, 21 Pac. '874, 11 Am. St. Rep. 857; return of process ; Kinney v.
Emery, 37 N. J. Eq. 339; McEvoy v. Trus tees of School Dist., 38 N. J. Eq. 420, which see as to legal proceedings, and see also Gould v. Spencer, 5 Paige (N. Y.) 541; service of a statement for a new trial; Rec lamation Dist. No. 535 of Sacramento Coun ty v. Hamilton, 112 Cal. 603, 44 Pac. 1074; service of an order for payment of money; In re Bornemann, 6 App. Div. 524, 39 N. Y. Supp. 686; a judgment by confession; Brad ley v. Claudon, 45 Ill. App. 326 ; and the entry of an appeal; Worthington v. Hoben sack, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 65. In Pennsylvania the supreme court hears arguments on a legal holiday; Payne v. Fresco, 17 W. N. C. (Pa.) 502. Memorial day is not dies non; Morel v. Stearns, 75 N. Y. Supp. 1082, 37 Misc. 486.
The following acts have been held in valid: the appointment of justices to hear the disclosure of an insolvent debtor ; Poor v. Beatty, Me. 580, 7 Atl. 541; entering judgment by default; Bierce v. Smith, 2 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 411; entering a judgment where the statute prescribed that the day should be for all purposes whatever consid ered as the first day of the week; Spiedel Grocery Co. v. Armstrong, 8 Ohio C. C. 489, 4 0. C. D. 498.
With respect to ministerial acts the ques tion may arise whether attendance of the officer and the performance of the duty is required, and this is to be settled entirely by the language of the statute. With re spect to the validity of such acts performed on a holiday, unless expressly made void by statute, the general rule is that an officer may act. This is held even where the stat tte expressly prohibits the transaction of judicial business, so an order of attachment past due is ministerial business, and may be issued where such a statute exists ; Whipple v. Hill, 36 Neb. 720, 55 N. W. 227, 20 L. R. A. 313, 38 Am. St. Rep. 742. Acts which have been held ministerial are taking a judgment; In re Worthington, 7 Biss. 455, Fed. Cas. No. 18,051; the entry of a judgment on a war rant of attorney ; Paine v. Fesco, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 562 ; a• sale for taxes; Hadley v. Musselman, 104 Ind. 459, 3 N. E. 122; the issuing of a summons by a justice of the peace ; Smith v. Ihling, 47 Mich. 614, 11 N. W. 408; but where the statute prohibits ju dicial business a trial and judgment would not be valid ; Lampe v. Manning, 38 Wis. 673; and it has been held that a sheriff's sale was not void because made on a holiday and, if confirmed, the title would not be en dangered, but that it was not a proper day and that, upon exception, the sale would have been set aside; Rice v. Gable, ,1 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 567.