SUNDAY DEALING. 31 



tract on a Sunday, that contract would be void (and the 

 case before him was a private contract for the purchase of a 

 horse), but he showed that that case was not within the 

 statute, because no one of the parties was in the exercise of 

 the business of his ordinary calling. His expression, that 

 the contract would be void, probably meant only that it 

 would be void so as to prevent a party who was privy to 

 what made it illegal from suing upon it in a Court of law, 

 but not so as to defeat a claim upon it by an innocent 

 party ; and so it was considered by this Court in Bloxsome 

 V. Williams " (s). 



Where neither parties are horsedealers, a contract beween By an ordinary 

 them for the sale of a horse is good, though made on Sun- Person- 

 day ; and this was recognized by Mr. Justice Bayley in the 

 last case, as having been distinctly laid down by Lord 

 Mansfield in Bmry v. De la Fontaine. 



Where a bargain for some cattle was made, and the price Subsequent 

 agreed on, on a Saturday evening, subject to the defendant's "^^^^^Itxs^t °^ 

 approval of the beasts upon inspection next morning ; and 

 accordingly on Sunday the defendant inspected and approved 

 them, and afterwards kept them for some time and pro- 

 mised to pay for them ; it was held, that although the 

 original contract was on Sunday, yet as they continued in 

 the possession of the defendant, who afterwards promised to 

 pay for them, this subsequent promise was sufficient on a 

 quantum meruit, or as a ratification of the agreement of the 

 Saturday {t). 



But a party cannot sue on a breach of warranty if he Breach of 

 take it on a Sunday from a person he knows to be a horse- warranty 



-,-,- •■'■ • • ffiV6ii on 3. 



dealer. However, where an innocent party brmgs an action gundav. 

 on the breach of a warranty given to him by a horsedealer 

 on a Sunday, it is not competent for the defendant to set 

 up his own breach of the law as an answer to the action ; 

 and this was so held in the case of Bloxsome v. Williams (u), 

 where an action was brought on the warranty of a horse, 

 and an objection was taken that it had been given on a 

 Sunday. It appeared that the defendant was a coach 

 proprietor and horsedealer, and that the plaintiff's son was 

 travelling on a Sunday in the defendant's coach, and while 

 the horses were changing he made a verbal bargain with 

 the defendant for the horse in question, for the price of 

 thirty-nine guineas ; the latter warranted the horse to be 



(s) Bloxsome v. Williams, 1 (t) Williams v. Paul, 6 Bing. 653. 



Taunt. 135 ; S. C, 3 B. & C. 232. («) See note (s), ante. 



