Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/26

le FEDERAL REPORTSR. �to consider and determine whether the evidence showed a reafQrm- ance on a week-day of • the contract, in case they should and tiio agreement was first entered into on Sunday. The court also in- structed the jury that the delivery of the cattle was evidence to be con- sidered by them tending to show realiirniance, as claimed by the plaintiff. Counsel in bis brief states that defendant testified that the cattle were delivered under no contract. He is mistaken. The defendant testified that he delivered the cattle under a contract made Sunday, July 4th. �The Vermont supreme court and the later authorities sustain the view taken in respect of the reaffirmance of Sunday contracts, in order, as said by Judge Redfield, to oecure parties from fraud and over- reaching practiced on Sunday by those who know their contracts are void and cannot be enforced. Adams v. Gdy, 19' Vt. 358 ; Harrison v. Coiton, 31' lowa, 16. In this case the evidence showed that the qtiality Of cattle delivered by the defendant was inferior, and not up to the average of the herd he had contracted to deliver. �If the jury had determined the contract was completed and final ou Sunday, and there had been no subsequent legal reaffirmance, the iawwould leave the plaintiff to suffer frb'm his cwn -wrong, and would not aid him; but if the jury came to the conclusion from the evidence that the contract had been reaffirmed on a subsequent week day, it became yalid from the date of the reaffirmance, and plaintiff was entitled to fecover damages for a bteach. His'success in such case does not depend on his own violation of law. �The jury sustained the latter view of the case. Durant v. Rhener, 26 Minn. 362, does not touch one vital point- upon whioh this case turned, provided the jury came to the conclusion that the contract was affirmed on a week day. In the opinion of the supreme court in that case the conclusion of the referee did not agree with his finding of facts, and the facts as he found them showed in its opinion the agreement was entered into on Sunday, and was so considered by both parties. �There was no evidence in that case tending to show a reaffirmance of the contract by the parties on a subsequent day. The evidence dearlyestablished "the agreement for the formation of a partnership, then and there," on Sunday. �The evidence here tended to show a reafi&rmance, and justifiedthe verdict of the jury. Motion denied. ��� �