Bernard v. Martel
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for goods sold. Facts agreed. The defendant’s property was attached on the writ, October 3, 1895. He was decreed an insolvent upon a creditors’ petition filed January 2, 1896. If the insolvency proceeding dissolved the attachment, the plaintiff is to be nonsuited; otherwise, he is to have judgment.
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
“ When time is to be reckoned from a day, date, act done, or the time of an act. done, either by force of law or by virtue of a contract made since the twenty-third day of December, eighteen hundred and forty-two, such day, date, or the day when such act is done shall not be included in the computation.” P. S., c. 2, s. 34. These terms are general and apply equally whether the time is to be reckoned backward or forward from the specified day or act. The purpose of the statute -was “ to establish a uniform rule of computation ” (Picker v. Blanchard, 45 N. H. 39, 48); and there is no reason for…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Standard Scale and Supply Corp. v. ChappelSupreme Court of Delaware · 1928
- Miller v. Town of TiltonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1995