13 Kan. 529 | Kan. | 1874
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The question in this case is, whether a contract made on Sunday is valid. The services contracted for' were not necessarily or by the contemplation of the parties to be rendered, and were not in fact rendered, on Sunday. For
“ Sec. 255. Every person who shall either labor himself, or compel his apprentice, servant, or any other person under his charge or control, to labor or perform any work * * * on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,” etc. (Gen. Stat., ch. 31, p. 373.)
In this it closely resembles the statutes of New York, Ohio and Missouri, and the decisions in those states place the making of a contract outside the limits of the prohibition. Merritt v. Earle, 29 N. Y., 120; Kaufman v. Haven, 30 Mo., 387; Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio St., 387. In the latter case is a lengthy and able opinion from Judge Thurman, pointing out the distinction between the terms “labor” and “business,” as well as discussing generally the subject of Sunday laws. We refer to that opinion as a clear and convincing argument that the making of a contract is not within the prohibition of a statute like ours. The thing prohibited is labor, and a contract made on any day to perform labor on Sunday, save “the household offices of daily necessity, or other works of necessity or charity,” is a contract to do a thing prohibited, and therefore void; but a contract made on Sunday to perform labor on any other day, is valid.
The order of the district court will be reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to affirm the judgment of the justice.