
    Carleton L. Stebbins vs. Ira Peck, Jr.
    An agreement for the use and occupation of land, made on the Lord’s day, is void by the B«v. Sts. c. 50; but if the land is subsequently entered upon and occupied, an action will- lia for the use and occupation.
    Action of contract for use and occupation. Trial in the court of common pleas in Hampden, at March term 1857.
    The plaintiff proved the use and occupation of his land by the defendant. The defendant testified that the use and occupation were under a contract made on the Lord’s day; and therefore contended that the plaintiff could not recover. Morris, J. instructed the jury that the contract, if made on the Lord’s day, was illegal and void; but that this action could be maintained if the defendant entered into the use and occupation of the land, even if he did so under such illegal contract. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      E. W Bond, for the defendant.
    
      J. G. Allen, for the plaintiff.
   Dewey, J.

This case is not affected by the Rev. Sts. c. 50, forbidding unnecessary labor on the Lord’s day; for the defendant entered on the land subsequently to the Lord’s day, on which the contract was made, and by such subsequent entry and continued occupation created a new liability if no legal contract existed previously. It was either a ratification and adoption of a previous inoperative contract, or was the foundation of a new implied provision to pay for the use of the land what the same was reasonably worth. In either aspect the

Exceptions must be overruled.  