Mumford v. Buel
Connecticut Superior Court
ERROR to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in an action brought by Buel v. Mumford, on'a note, dated tbe 31st of May, A. D. 1788. Plea in bar' — 'That said 31st of May was Saturday, and tbat after the setting of tbe sun, and tbe darkness bad comprehended tbe light on said day, said Buel caused said Mumford to be taken on an execution in his favor; and to procure said Mumford’s release from said arrest, said note was given and executed between tbe hours of eleven and…
Read the full summary
ERROR to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in an action brought by Buel v. Mumford, on'a note, dated tbe 31st of May, A. D. 1788. Plea in bar' — 'That said 31st of May was Saturday, and tbat after the setting of tbe sun, and tbe darkness bad comprehended tbe light on said day, said Buel caused said Mumford to be taken on an execution in his favor; and to procure said Mumford’s release from said arrest, said note was given and executed between tbe hours of eleven and twelve at night; which time was part and parcel of tbe Sabbath or Lord’s day, and is void. Demurrer — Judgment of the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
All people agree, that the artificial or solar day is the Sabbath; and that the Sabbath includes the whole of the natural day of twenty-four hours — but whether it includes the evening and night preceding, or any part of it, or the evening and night succeeding, is a matter about which mankind differ; and undoubtedly the law meant to allow them liberty of conscience, in case they do not disturb others.
The law forbids all secular business upon the Lord’s day, under a penalty; it forbids all diversions and assembling together at taverns, and in the streets on Saturday evenings after…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Fox v. AbelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818