Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Or. 190

Smith v. Case

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1866

Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1866-09-15

Smith loaned to defendant, Case, $300, for which Case executed and delivered his promissory note on Sunday; and on a week day he afterwards made a promise to pay plaintiff the money so received at the making of the note. The defendant demurred to the complaint, because it appeared that the note was executed on Sunday. The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer, and plaintiff appealed. 1st. Subsequent promise need not be in -writing; no statute requiring it.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1874

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-09-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Prim, J.

¶1Section 653 of the Code provides “ that if any person shall do any secular business or labor, other than works of necessity or mercy, on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday or the Lord’s day, such person, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine, etc.” ^The note set out in the complaint being executed and delivered on Sunday, in violation of this statutory provision, is illegal and void, and therefore cannot be enforced in the courts. The contract; being void, the defendant could acquire no right of property ! in the money obtained under it; and the express promise, subsequently made, as alleged, by him, we think is sufficient' *192to render Mm liable in assumpsit for the money had and received of plaintiff and for his use and benefit. It is urged that there was no consideration to support this promise, but we think the retention of this money belonging to plaintiff, is a sufficient consideration to support it. (Adams v. Gray, 19 Ver., 358; Williams v. Paul, 6 Bing., 653 ; Dodson v. Harris, 10 Ala., 566.)

¶2The court below having sustained the demurrer, the judgment is reversed, and case remanded with leave to defendant to answer.

/2/or/190 · .json · Public domain