Chiles v. Smith's Heirs
| Decision Date | 06 January 1852 |
| Citation | 52 Ky. 460 |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Chiles <I>vs.</I> Smith's heirs. |
The final decree in this case was rendered on the 18th day of October, 1848, and the writ of error was sued out on the 18th day of October, 1851. The defendants have pleaded the statute of limitations, which provides that no writ of error shall be sued out "except in three years next after the judgment or "final decree, and not thereafter." (2 Stat. Law, 1146.)
If the day in which the decree was rendered is to be included in the computation of the time, then the three years had expired on the 17th of October, 1851, and the bar was complete when the writ of error was sued out.
The rule in regard to the computation of time seems to be, that when the computation is to be made from an act done, the day in which the act was done must be included, because, since there is no fraction in a day, the act relates to the first moment of the day in which it was done. But when the computation is to be from the day itself, and not from the act done, there the day in which the act was done must be excluded. (Bellaris v. Hester, 1 Lord Raymond, and the authorities cited.)
Hence, in the case of The King v. Adderly, 2 Douglass, 463, which was a proceeding against a sheriff for failing to return a writ that had been placed in his hands, and which proceeding was not allowed by the statute, unless it was commenced against the sheriff within six months after the expiration of his office, it was decided that the day upon which the office expired was to be reckoned in, to make up the six months, and that the proceeding had been commenced one day too late.
The court in that case referred to the case of Norris v. The Hundred of Gantris, reported in 1 Brownlow, 156, which was an action on the statute of hue and cry. The robbery was laid and proved to have been on the 9th day of October, in the thirteenth year of James I, and the writ was tested on the 9th day of October in the following year, and the words of the statute of Elizabeth being, "that no person shall take any benefit, &c., except he or they so robbed shall commence his or their suit or action within one year next after such robbery," &c., it was held, that the day when the robbery was committed was to be included in the year, and that the action was brought too late.
Upon the same principle it was decided by this court in the case of Woods v. Patrick...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fannin v. Lewis
...of the accrual of the cause of action, rather than from the day upon which it accrued. Without a single exception since Chiles v. Smith's Heirs, 52 Ky. 460, 13 B.Mon. 460, decided in 1852, this court has applied this rule of computation in construing statutes of limitation. Chiles v. Smith'......
-
State v. Vicknair
... ... 112; ... Carleton v. Byington, 16 Iowa 588; Smith v ... Laborre, 37 Kan. 480, 15 P. 577; Chiles v ... Smith's Heirs, 52 Ky. 460; Chapman v ... Allen, 33 Neb. 129, 49 N.W. 926; Carson v ... ...
-
Leavenworth Coal Co. v. Barber
... ... included." To like effect are the cases of Jacobs v ... Graham, 1 Blackf. 392, and Chiles v. Smith's ... Heirs, 52 Ky. 460, 13 B. Mon. 460. In the latter case ... the court says: ... ...
-
Smith v. M.J. Lawler & Son
...determined, is when appellees' cause of action accrued upon the apportionment warrant issued by the board of public works. In Chiles v. Smith's Heirs, 52 Ky. 460, it was held by this court that the rule in regard to computation of time is that, "when the computation is to be made from an ac......