{ "id": 6106074, "name": "John Ewing et al. v. Jacob Bailey", "name_abbreviation": "Ewing v. Bailey", "decision_date": "1843-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "435", "last_page": "437", "citations": [ { "type": "nominative", "cite": "4 Scam. 420" }, { "type": "official", "cite": "5 Ill. 420" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "107 Ill. 440", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5367206 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "442" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/107/0440-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Ill. 28", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2650660 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/84/0028-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 Ill 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2672528 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/81/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 Ill. 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5309545 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/70/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2634000 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/69/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 817752 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "189" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/56/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 Ill. 359", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5271098 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/47/0359-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 Ill. 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5297033 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "177" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/46/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 425899 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/40/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 Ill. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5217054 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "205" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/41/0203-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ill. 9", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5212547 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "138" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/33/0009-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5205104 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/28/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Gilm. 270", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gilm.", "case_ids": [ 2566862 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/10/0270-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 369, "char_count": 5922, "ocr_confidence": 0.547, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.169281675759224e-07, "percentile": 0.9745446549200358 }, "sha256": "00daa3fde47f38c1ef0476db509b624d58dba93a1b4026783868297126516dba", "simhash": "1:94fdf313a393a9ca", "word_count": 1058 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:32:49.187861+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "John Ewing et al. v. Jacob Bailey." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tjbeat, Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the court: [* 421] Bailey recovered a judgment against Ewing, before a justice of the peace, on the 16th of April, 1842. On the 5th of May following, Ewing entered into an appeal bond before the justice; which bond and the papers of the case, the justice filed with the clerk of the circuit court on the 25th of the same month. The circuit court, on the motion of Bailey, dismissed the appeal. That decision is now assigned for error.\nThe act of February 3d, 1840, which authorizes a party to take an appeal, by entering into bond before the justice, requires the justice to file the bond and the other papers belonging to the case, in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, within twenty days after the approval of the bond. The only question sought to be decided in the case is, whether the justice complied with this provision of the statute. The proper \" mode of computing time, where an act is to be performed within a particular period from or after a specified day, is to exclude the day named, and include the day on which the act is to be done. For example; a .promissory note executed on the first day of the month, and payable in twenty days from date, falls due on the tw\u00e9nty-first of the month ; in reckoning the time, the day of the date is excluded, and the day on which the maker is required to pay is included. By this rule, the day on which the appeal bond was executed was to be excluded in the computation of the twenty days, and the justice had the whole of the 25th of May in which'to file the papers. He having filed them on that day, the court ought not to have dismissed the appeal. Whether filed within the twenty days or not, it was error to dismiss the appeal, as .this court has decided at this term, in the case of Little v. Smith, ante 400.\nThe judgment of the circuit court must be reversed with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.\nJudgment reversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tjbeat, Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "Willis Allen and J. A. McDougall, for the plaintiffs in error.", "J. C. Conkling, for the defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "John Ewing et al. v. Jacob Bailey.\nError to Franklin.\n1. TrME \u2014 computation of. The proper mode of computing time, when an act is to be performed within a particular period from or after a specified day, is to exclude the day named, and include the day on which the act is to be done,\n2. Same \u2014 same\u2014on appeal. In computing the twenty days within which an appeal bond is to be filed in the clerk\u2019s office by the justice of the peace taking the same, the day on which the bond is taken is to be excluded, and the day of filing the same included. But where the bond is not filed to dismiss the appeal, for that cause. the twenty days, it is error tor the court\nThe proceedings in this cause in the court below were had at the April term, 1842, before the Hon. Walter B. Scates.\nWillis Allen and J. A. McDougall, for the plaintiffs in error.\nJ. C. Conkling, for the defendant in error.\nCases Citing Text. Under statute which requires that sixty days shall intervene between first publication of notice and term of court, day of first publication should be excluded and first day of term included. Vairin v. Edmonson, 5 Gilm. 270, 272.\nUnder warrant of attorney authorizing confession of judgment \u201c from and after date \u201d thereof, judgment cannot be confessed on day warrant bears date. Waterman v. Jones, 28 Ill. 54.\nUnder warrant of attorney authorizing confession of judgment \u201cat any time thereafter,\u201d judgment may be confessed on day warrant bears date. Cummins v. Holmes, 11 Bradw. 158, 161.\nRule stated in head note, applied to computation of period within which Governor must return vetoed bill to General Assembly under Constitution of . 1848. People v. Hatch, 33 Ill. 9, 138.\nRule applied to computation of period within which summons may be served. Bowman v. Wood, 41 Ill. 203, 205.\nWhere statute required six days\u2019 publication of notice in newspaper, it was held that publication on Sunday could not be counted as one of six days. Scammon v. Chicago, 40 Ill. 146.\nIn computing period within which notice to terminate tenancy may be given, day of execution of lease should be excluded and last day of term included. Higgins v. Halligan, 46 Ill. 173, 177.\nStatute requiring three weeks\u2019 notice held satisfied by publication of first insertion on March 16th and last on March 30th. Madden \u00b6. Cooper, 47 Ill. 359.\nRule that first day shall be excluded and last day included, applied to computation of period for which notice shall be published. Harper v. Ely, 56 Ill. 179, 189.\nUnder deed requiring notice of sale, by publishing notice in newspaper \u201cten days before such sale,\u201d notice of sale on May 13th, published on May 2d, and each day thereafter except Sundays, nine insertions in all, held sufficient. Cushman v. Stone, 69 Ill. 516.\nIf power of sale in trust deed stipulates for ten days\u2019 notice, Sunday should be included in computation, as notice is not to bring party into court. Kingsbury v. Buckner, 70 Ill. 514.\nRule stated in head note-applied to computation of period within' which money to redeem from sheriff\u2019s sale must be paid. Roan v. Rohrer, 72 111. 582.\nWhere assessment on insurance policy is to be paid within thirty days from date of notice, day of receipt will be excluded. Protection, etc. Ins. Co. v. Palmer, 81 Ill 88.\nIf statute requires notice to be published three times for three successive weeks, publication made on Friday and Saturday of first week, on each day of next week, and from Monday to Thursday, inclusive, of third week, is compliance with statute, although three full weeks have not elapsed between first and last publications. Andrews v. People, 84 Ill. 28.\nRule stated in head note applied to computation of period within which new trial may be applied for in ejectment. Pugh v. Reat. 107 Ill. 440, 442.\nBy statute, giving of notices is governed by rule stated .in head note modified by excepting Sunday when that is last day. R.S. 1874, Notices ch. 100, \u00a7 6 ; S. & C.\u2019s Stats, p. 1675 ; Cothran\u2019s Stats. (1885) p. 1010." }, "file_name": "0435-01", "first_page_order": 447, "last_page_order": 449 }