Minnesota Supreme Court, 1862

Finney v. Callendar

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 15, 1862 · Emmett

8 Minn. 41 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

L. M. BeowN, Counsel for Appellants., A. Gr. ChatRielb, Counsel for Respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1874, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Webb v. Kennedy (Minn. 1874)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

By the Cowrt

Emmett, C. J.

There are two questions presented by this record. Eirst, whether a note executed on *43Sunday is of any validity ; and, secondly, whether a Defend* ant sufficiently interposes such a defence by simply alleging in his answer that the note sued upon was not made on the 10th day of October, 1861, the day alleged in the complaint, but on the 13th of said month, which appears on examination to have been Sunday, although there is no allegation of that fact.

We had the first question under consideration in the case of Brimhall vs. Van Campen, ante p. 13, and came to the conclusion that under our statute, a note made on Sunday in this State, is absolutely void.

As to the other question the Plaintiff claims that such an answer is deceptive, as indicating only that the time of making the note was mis-stated, without advising him of the de-fence relied upon. On the other hand the Defendants urge that the allegation is sufficient, the Court being bound, as they allege, to take judicial notice of the calendar time.

No authorities are cited by either party touching this point, nor have we found any in the search which we. have been able to make. It is not, however, of so much importance to the profession, in this State, how the question of pleading shall be decided, as that it shall be authoritatively settled.

The almanac has long been regarded and held as a part of the law of the land. It cannot be said to be a special law, therefore it must belong to the general law ; and being so, it is governed by the ordinary rule applicable to all general laws, and need not be specially pleaded. At least the necessity for making this an exception has not been demonstrated to us.

The order sustaining the Plaintiff’s demurrer to the answer of the Defendants is reversed, and the case remanded.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.