A deed made on Sunday is not within a contract forbidding the making of con tracts on Sunday; Wooldridge v. Wooldridge, 69 W. Va. 554, 72 S. E. 654, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 653; Where negotiations for a contract were begun on Saturday, continued on Sunday and closed on Monday, the contract was valid; Curtin Gas Co., 233 Pa. 397, 82 AU. 503; where a contract of exchange of land was made on Saturday and put in writing on Sunday, the broker was entitled to his com missions; McCormick v. Hazard, 77 Misc.
Rep. 190, 136 N. Y. Supp. 91. The appoint ment of an agent to sign a contract for the sale of land on Sunday is invalid ; Kryzmin ski v. Callahan, 213 Mass. 207, 100 N. E. 335, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 140; otherwise of a re lease executed on Sunday but the sonsidera tion paid on a later day; Ross v. Oliver Bros., 152 Ky. 437, 153 S. W. 756; anything done on Sunday in performance of a valid contract will not be treated as a nullity;. Gordon v. Levine, 197 Mass. 263, 83 N. E. 861, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 243, 125 Am. St. Rep. 361.
Defendant hired an automobile from the plaintiff on a Sunday for the purpose of joy riding, which was in violation of the Sunday law. On a subsequent secular day the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff for the ride, but it was held that the plaintiff could not recover ; Jones v. Belle Isle, 13 Ga. App. 437, 79 S. E. 357.
A contract made on Sunday may be rati fied; Johnson v. Willis, 7 Gray (Mass:) 164; Sumner v. Jones, 24 Vt. 317; Russell & Co.' v. Murdock, 79 Ia. 101, 44 N. W. 237, 18 Am. St. Rep. 348 ; but see Butler v. Lee, 11 Ala. 885, 46 Am. Dec. 230 ; but only by an express agreement and not by mere acquiescence; Hill v. Hite, 79 Fed. 826 ; but it is held that a note made on Sunday cannot be ratified; Moseley v. Bank, 3 Ala. App. 614,'57 South. 91; a will executed on Sunday is valid; Ben nett v. Brooks, 9 Allen (Mass.) 118 ; Rapp v. Reehling, 124 Ind. 36, 23 N. E. 777, 7 L. R. A. 496. A contract for an advertisement in a Sunday paper is invalid; Smith v. Wilcox, 24 N. Y. 353, 82 Am. Dec. 302 ; contra, Shef field v. Balmer, 52 Mo. 474, 14 Am. Rep. 430..
A verdict in a homicide case submitted to the jury on Saturday may be received and the jury discharged on Sunday ; Ball v. U. S., 163 U. S. 662, 16 Sup. Ct. 1192, 41 L. Ed. 300. A verdict received on Sunday is valid; Burrage v. State, 101 Miss. 598, 58 South. 217.
Laws requiring all persons to refrain from their ordinary callings on Sunday have been held not to encroach on the religious liberty of the people ; Cooley, Const. Lim., 2d ed. 584, 725; they may be sustained as police regulations ; Kurtz v. People, 33 Mich. 279; Frolickstein v. Mobile, 40 Ala. 725 ; Clinton v. Wilson, 257 Ill. 580, 101 N. E. 192. The legislature may regulate the observance of Sunday ; People v. Dunford, 207 N. Y. 17,
100 N. E. 433. Idaho (1907) prohibits horse racing and opening saloons on Sunday; Colo rado only prohibits selling liquors (until six o'clock Monday morning) and carrying ou the business of a barber ; Georgia forbids running trains on Sunday ; .in Porto Rico all business must close at twelve o'clock noon on Sunday. California has had no Sunday laws whatever since 1883.
Under an act making it unlawful to open a shop on Sunday, for the tale of goods, etc., a barber cannot be convicted; State v. Krech, 10 Wash. 166, 38 Pac. 1001. A stat ute forbidding barbers to carry on their trade on Sunday is constitutional, under the police power ; People v. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 43 N. E. 541, 31 L. R. A. 689, 52 Am. St. Rep. 707 ; notwithstanding the act allows barbers in the cities of New York and Saratoga to work till one o'clock ; but in Illinois (Eden v. People, 161 HI. 296, 43 N. E. 1168, 32 L. R. A. 659, 52 Am. St. Rep. 365), it is held that an act forbidding barbers to work at their trade on Sunday is a taking of property without due process of law ; and that it is not a proper exercise of the police power. See, also, Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 468, 44 Pac. 803, 32 L. R. A. 664. But an ordinance regulat ing the doing of business on Sunday is with in the police power of a city ; Clinton v. Wilson, 257 I11. 580, 101 N. E. 192.
Any act forbidding railroad trains to run on Sunday does not constitute a regulation of, and an obstruction to, interstate com merce, and is valid; Norfolk & W. R. R. Co. v. Com., 88 Va. 95, 13 S. E. 340, 13 L. R. A. 107, 29 Am. St. Rep. 705; Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299, 16 Sup. Ct. 1086, 41 L. Ed. 166 ; State v. R. Co., 24 W. Va. 783, 49 Am. Rep. 290; but an act forbidding all I manner of servile labor on Sundays, etc., is held to be void, so far as it affects interstate traffic; Adams Exp. Co. v. Board, 65 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 72. The running of trains is with in the prohibition of a statute which punishes any person who labors in his calling on Sun day, or employs his servants in so doing, ex cept in works of necessity or charity; State v. R. Co., 24 W. Va. 783, 49 Am. Rep. 290; but it has been held that running an excur sion train on Sunday is a work of necessity ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Com. (Ky.) 30 S. W. 878 ; so is delivery of milk to customers ; Topeka v. Hempstead, 58 Kan. 328, 49 Pac. 87. Acts have been passed forbidding baseball playing on Sunday. The cases differ as to their constitutionality. See 56 Alb. L. J. 202 ; 57 id. 258. Baseball does not come within the class of "sports" prohibited on Sunday ; Territory v. Davenport, 17 N. M. 214, 124 Pac. 795, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 407.