Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 R.I. 464

40 A 6

West v. West

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided April 13, 1898

Supreme Court of Rhode Island · decided 1898-04-13

<p>When a statute provides that an act may be done within a given number of days the Sundays within the time are counted unless the last day falls on Sunday, in which case the act may be done on the next day.</p>

Relies on Barnes v. Eddy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Heard on appellant’s petition for a new trial · Decided 1898-04-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1940

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

10189819001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 248, § 1, provides that an appeal may be taken from a decree of a Court of Probate by filing a bond within forty days next after the decree shall have been made. In this case the forty days ended on Sunday, and the bond was filed the following day. On this ground a motion to dismiss the appeal in the Common Pleas Division was granted, and the appellant asks for a new trial. *465 The rule is stated in Barnes v. Eddy, 12 R. I. 25, that when a given number of days are allowed to do an act, or when an act may be done within a given number of days, the Sundays within the time are counted unless the last day falls on Sunday, in which case the act may be done on the next day.

Andrew B. Patton, for appellant. Charles A.' Wilson, John E. Conley and John Doran, for appellee.

¶2 This rule is reasonable and comprehensive. Since its declaration it has been understood by the court to apply to all cases where days are the units in the computation of time not otherwise provided for by statute. It is a rule of expediency, to cover cases where the exact time prescribed cannot be made use of, and, therefore, where the question is whether the legislature probably intended that there should be one day less than the period, or that there should be an extension of one day to fill out the period, when it should end on Sunday. As it does not rest upon any principle of law, nor involve any legal or equitable right, we do not need to consider whether it accords with the decisions of the courts, many of which have been cited to us by the appellee, and many also of which might be cited the other way. We regard the rule as settled in this State, and we see no reason to disturb it.

¶3 Petition for a new trial- granted.

/20/ri/464 · .json · Public domain