Necessity may arise out of particular oc cupations; Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Towboat Co., 23 How. (U. S.) 219, 16 L. Ed. 433 ; TJ. S. v. Powell, 14 Wall. (TJ. S.) 494, 20 L. Ed. 726; Hennersdorf v. State, 25 Tex. App. 597, 8 S. W. 926, 8 Am. St. Rep. 448; hut not when it is a work of mere conven ience or profit ; Pate v. Wright, 30 Ind. 476, 93 Am. Dec. 705. Necessity should be construed reasonably ; it is a question of moral propriety; State v. R. Co., 239 Mo. 196, 142 S. W. 785.
Shaving a man is not a work of necessity ; State v. Wellott, 54 Mo. App. 310; Com. v. Waldman, 140 Pa. 89, 21 Atl. 248, 11 L. R. A. 563; Corn. v. Dextra, 143 Mass. 28, 8 N. E. 756. See infra. Reaping a field of oats on Sunday in order to prevent the loss there of is a work of necessity; Johnson v. People, 42 III. App. 594; so is repaving a city street in a populous neighborhood; 156 App. Div. 601.
Running street railways on Sunday was held illegal ; Sparhawk v. R. Co., 54 Pa. 401; contra, Wood v. R. Co., 72 N. Y. 196, 28 Am. Rep. 125 ; and see Augusta & Sum merville R. Co. v. Renz, 55 Ga. 126.
For an employe of a contractor to work on a building on Sunday violates the Sunday law; Lane v. State (Tex.) 150 S. W. 637.
When statutes forbid travelling on Sun day, there can be no recovery for injuries from defective streets; Connolly v. Boston, 117 Mass. 64, 19 Am. Rep. 396; Johnson v. Irasburgh, 47 Vt. 32, 19 Am. Rep. 111; but see Sutton v. Wauwatosa, 29 Wis. 21; unless the party was travelling from motives of necessity or charity ; Crosman v. Lynn, 121 Mass. 301; as riding to a funeral or for health; Eaton v. ins. Co., 89 Me. 570. 36 Atl. 1048; or walking for exercise; O'Con nell v. Lewiston, 65 Me. 34, 20 Am. Rep. 673. But in actions for torts against individuals by common carriers, it Is no defence that the injury occurred upon Sunday; Mohney v. Cook, 26 Pa. 342, 67 Am. Dec. 419; Schmid v. Humphrey, 48 Ia. 652, 30 Am. Rep. 414; contra, Lyons v. Desotelle, 124 Mass. 387. Most of the cases are otherwise; Big. L. C. Torts 711 ; see Bucher v. II. Co., 125 U. S. 555, 8 Sup. Ct. 974, 31 L. Ed. 795; and the law in Massachusetts was altered in 1877.
Except as to judicial acts, which are void when done on Sunday ; 1 W. Bl. 526; Ball v. U. S., 140 U. S. 118, 11 Sup. Ct. 761, 35 L. Ed. 377; I'arsous v. Lindsay, 41 Kan. 336, 21 Pac. 227, 3 L. R. A. 658, 13 Am. St.
Rep. 290; see DIES Nos (but a New York city magistrate may try and sentence one for disorderly conduct; People v. Fox, 150 App. Div. 114, N. Y. Supp. 642); the common law makes no distinction between Sunday and any other day. The English cases decided after the act of Charles II., supra, merely avoided contracts made in pursuance of one's ordinary calling; see 1 Cr. & J. 180; Merritt v. Earle, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 41; 4 M. & W. 270; but in most of the states contracts made on Sunday are invalid; see Hilton v. Houghton, 35 Me. 143; Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358; Kepner v. Keefer, 6 Watts (Pa.) 231, 31 Am. Dec. 460; Hill v. Sherwood, 3 Wis. 343; and if not executed. cannot be enforced; Calhoun v. Phillips, 87 Ga. 482, 13 S. E. 593; Aspell v. Hosbein, 98 Mich. 117, 57 N. W. 27. In New York any business but judicial may be done on Sun day ; Batsford v. Every, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 618.
Generally speaking executory contracts made on Sunday will not be enforced, while executed contracts will not be disturbed ; Chestnut v. Harbaugh, 78 Pa. 473 ; Horton v. Buffinton, 105 Mass. 399 ; Ellis v. Ham mond, 57 Ga. 179 ; Nibert v. Baghurst, 47 N. J. Eq. 201, 20 Atl. 252; but see Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio St. 388 ; Johnson v. Brown, 13 Kan. 529, as to executory contracts. De livery on Sunday passes title against the vender ; Moore v. Murdock, 26 Cal. 514 ; Banks v. Werts, 13 Ind. 203; but see Tucker v. Mowrey, 12 Mich. 378; a church subscrip tion on Sunday is valid in Pennsylvania ; 12 Reptr. 665; and Michigan ; 21 Alb. L. J. 293. See Catlett v. Trustees, 62 Ind. 365, 30 Am. Rep. 197. A contract of sale made on Sunday is not saved from being a Sunday contract by the fact that the purchase-mon ey was not paid until Monday ; Grant v. McGrath, 56 Conn. 333, 15 Atl. 370. A con tract dated on Sunday may be shown to be erroneously dated ; Stacy v. Kemp, 97 Mass. 166; and it may be shown that a contract bearing a secular date was actually execut ed on Sunday ; Bank v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 198; but not against a bona fide holder with out notice; Clinton Nat. Bk. v. Graves, 48 Ia. 228. When a contract takes effect on delivery, the date is not material; Prather v. Harlan, 6 Bush (Ky.) 185; Peake v. Con lan, 43 Ia. 297;' and a note executed on Sunday but delivered on another day is val id; Goss v. Whitney, 24 Vt. 189; Hilton v. Houghton, 35' Me. 143.