{
  "id": 11276704,
  "name": "S. SATTERWHITE v. A. R. BURWELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Satterwhite v. Burwell",
  "decision_date": "1858-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "92",
  "last_page": "93",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "6 Jones 92"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 N.C. 92"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 2928,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.442,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.168668855370785e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42939260165360993
    },
    "sha256": "15fc25b6f3490d3978ce20e901e2e408bf6a132c6a54ad112218fa0b19736430",
    "simhash": "1:8b59846db3ac161c",
    "word_count": 480
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:11:27.511452+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. SATTERWHITE v. A. R. BURWELL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeaesoN, C. J.\nThe agreement was to forbear the collection of money for \u201ctwelve months;\u201d and the question is, does it mean calendar, or lunar months.\nThe rule in reference to these modes of computation was recently discussed, (Rives v. Guthrie, 1 Jones\u2019 Rep. 84,) and we consider it unnecessary to enter npon the subject again ; but shall content ourselves by presenting a general view, suggested by an examination of the authorities.\nIn the \u201c civil law\u201d computation by calendar months was adopted. In the \u201c common law\u201d the computation was by lunar months, as a general rule, but it was subject to a very comprehensive exception. The dividing line was this; where the common law rested upon itself for its origin, or was not derived from the civil law, lunar months obtained ; that is, in the acts of parliament, in the proceedings of the common law courts, and in matters relating to real estate, the law, in regard to which, was derived from the feudal system, and rested upon it as a substratum. But where the common law was derived from the civil law, computation by calendar months obtained ; for instance, in the proceedings of the ecclesiastical courts; the law merchant, in contracts constituting money transactions, (like that under consideration;) bailments, and in reference to personal estate'generally; for in respect to those subjects, the rules of the civil law were adopted, with such modifications as were introduced by common custom, and such additions and alterations as were made by statutory enactment.\nBy a recent statute the exception is extended, and in \u201c the construction of statutes,\u201d a \u201c month\u201d is now taken to mean a calendar month, unless otherwise declared. So that the computation by lunar months is confined within a narrow compass, and now makes the exception, and not the general rule; if, indeed, it be not entirely abolished by a liberal construction of the statute referred to. There is no error.\nPee Curiam, Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeaesoN, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lanier, Winston, Sr., and Reade, for plaintiff.",
      "Eaton and Da/ois, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. SATTERWHITE v. A. R. BURWELL.\nAn agreement to forbear the collection of money for \u201c twelve months,\u201d means twelve calendar months.\nAotioN of debt qui tarn, for usury, tried before Sauhde\u00e9s, J., at the Spring Term, 1858, of Granville Superior Court.\nThe time of forbearance was stated in the plaintiff\u2019s declaration, to be from the 6th of Feb\u2019ry, 1855, until, and upon, the 6th of February, 1856. The evidence was that the defendant agreed to wait twelve months.\nThe defendant\u2019s counsel contended that the words \u201c twelve months,\u201d used by the witness, meant twelve lunar months, and if he was to be believed, there was a fatal variance between the declaration and proof, and called upon the Court so to instruct the jury.\nHis Honor declined giving such instruction, but held that the words, twelve months, without explanation or addition, meant calendar months. Defendant excepted.\nLanier, Winston, Sr., and Reade, for plaintiff.\nEaton and Da/ois, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0092-01",
  "first_page_order": 100,
  "last_page_order": 101
}