Taxation: Immunity of National Securities

1908 Michigan law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... ntent at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Coles v. Peck (I884), 96 Ind. 333, 338, the court say: "From illustrations given and various exceptions noted, the doctrine of these extracts [referring to prior quotations from Viner's General Abridgment, Story on Contracts, and Bouvier's Institutes, in support of the doctrine], is only applicable to alternative obligations which are distinctly disjunctive and not to cases in which the law, or the evident intention of the parties, implies an election." SUNDAY CONTRACT-VALIDITY-RATIFICATION.-A statute provided as follows: "Every person who shall, on the Sabbath or Sunday, be found laboring, or shall compel his apprentice or servant to labor or to perform other services than customary household duties, of daily necessity, comfort, or charity, on conviction thereof shall be fined one dollar for each separate offense." Plaintiff sued to recover rent alleged to be due, upon a five year lease, for the year 1904. Defendant answered that said lease was executed on Sunday and therefore was invalid. Held, that, although this lease was within the terms of the statute, yet the parties, by their subsequent acts and conduct, ratified the contract and so became bound by its terms. J. B. Bostic Co. et al. v. Eggleston (1907), -Ind. T. -, o14 S. W. Rep. 566. Two interesting questions are here presented, (I) as to the validity of a contract under such a statute, and (2) as to the power of ratifying such contract. The invalidity of Sunday contracts is based on statute, since at common law no contract was void because made on Sunday. Drury v. Defontaine, I Taunt. I31. In the interpretation of such statutes great conflict occurs. Some courts hold that statutes forbidding "labor" or "common labor" on Sunday do not include the mere execution of a contract, because this is more properly classified as "business," and so is valid. Richmond v. Moore, Io7 Ill. 429, 47 Am.
doi:10.2307/1273374 fatcat:n2llc4b5ubacfaq6uxb4ygdky4