Brewster v. BantaBrewster v. Banta
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Depue
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Thе declaration contains only the cоmmon counts. Annexed to it is a notice, pursuant to the statute, that the action was brought to recover the amount due on a prоmissory note, dated November 7th, 1898, made by Demаrest Banta and endorsed by Harvey D. Banta. Thе defence was that the note in question was made on Sunday, and that it was given in payment of the difference on an exchange of horses concluded on that day, and was thеrefore void.
The case was tried in the Bеrgen Circuit by the court, without a jury. The court direсted a nonsuit as to Harvey Banta and found in fаvor of the plaintiff as against Demarest Banta. The judge held that the Sunday transaction was wholly illegal, and a nonsuit as to Harvey Banta was directed on the
The law regulating this subject is conclusively settled in the series of eases beginning with Reeves v. Butcher, 2 Vroom 224. In the first оf these cases the Supreme Court held that the statute forbidding worldly employment or business on Sunday rendered void every transaction whiсh, if performed on a weekday, would be enforceable in a court 'of justice; thаt such a transaction, being wholly void, could nоt be validated by ratification; but that the consideration emanating from the tainted cоntract will be sufficient to form the foundation for a new express promise, on which reсovery might be had. Reeves v. Butcher, supra; Ryno v. Darby, 5 C. E. Gr. 231; Cannon v. Ryan, 20 Vroom 314.
The trial court found, as a question of fact, that, so far as Demarest Bаnta was concerned, there had beеn an express promise to the plaintiff tо pay the debt. In the trial of an issue beforе the court, a jury being waived, pursuant to seсtion 176 of the Practice act {Gen. Stat., p. 2562), the cоurt is substituted for the jury, and its findings on questions of fact cаnnot be reviewed on writ of error; all that сan be reviewed is the sufficiency of the facts found to support the judgment. Columbia Delaware Bridge Co. v. Geisse, 9 Vroom 39, 580; City of Elizabeth v. Hill, 10 Id. 555; Blackford v. Plainfield Gas Light Co., 14 Id. 438. In this ease there was evidence of a subsequent exрress promise to pay the note, and the trial judge so found. That decision cannot be called in question.
The judgment should be affirmed.