Month

Whether the word month, occurring in a written instrument, as a contract, deed, or statute, means a calendar or a lunar month, is a question of intention. Where the intent is not clear from the nature of the instrument or the context in which the word is found,.some positive rule of construction must be applied; and this rule has varied in different jurisdictions. It is not possible to reconcile the decisions; but, upon a general view of them, the clue to the conflict seems to be this: The common law preferred to construe month as meaning lunar month. The general commercial law, common to England and continental Europe, together with the ecclesiastical courts, preferred to understand it as calendar month; both, very probably, being under some influence from the church, by which the system of calendar months was imposed. The common-law courts soon came to yield to the rule of the mercantile law in construing commercial instruments, while they adhered to the common-law rule in common-law papers. The distinction was not always strictly pursued; our colonial courts, therefore, found the question embardecided some one way and some another; and at last, in many of the states, statutes have been passed prescribing a positive rule, under which decisions apparently conflicting with earlier ones in the same court have been necessarily rendered.

See Redmond v. Glover, Dudl. 107. Thus now in England, by Stat. 33 Vict. ch.

21, passed in 1850, the word month, in an act of parliament, is declared to mean a calendar month. " Month," in a statute, should generally he construed to mean a calendar montli. Brudenell w.

Vaux, 2 Dall. 302; Hunt v. Holden, 2 Mass. 170; Avery v. Pixley, 4 Id. 460; Alston v. Alston, Tredw. Const. COO; Williamson v. Farrow, 1 Bailey, 611; Commonwealth V. Charabre, 4 Dall. 143; Pyle V. Maulding, 7 /.

J. Marsh. 202; Parsons v. Chamberlain, 4 Wend. 512; Kimball v Lamson, 2 Vt. 138; Commonwealth v. Shortridge, 3 J. J. Marsh. 638; Mitchell v. Woodson, 37 Miss. 567; Strong v. Birchard, 5 Conn. 367; Sprague v. Norway, 31 Cal, 173; Brewer v. Harris, 5 Gratt. 285. " Month," at common law, when used alone, means a lunar month. But it may be construed calendar month, when required by its context in a statute. What context will have this effect, in a penal law, see State v. Jacobs, 2 Harr. (Del.) 548. In commercial instruments, bills of exchange, promissory notes, &c., " month " means, presumably, a calendar, not a lunar, month.

Leffingwell v. White, 1.Tohns. Cas. 99; Thomas o. Shoemaker, 6 Watts &• S. 179..

In matters other than commercial instruments, "month" was construed (prior to the statute prescribing a different rule) as meaning lunar month.

Leffingwell v. White, 1 Johns. Cas. 99; Loring v. Hailing, 16 Johns. 119; Jackson v. Van Valkenburgh, 8 Cow. 260; Parsons o.

Chamberlin, 4 Wend. 612; People v. Mavor, &c. of N. Y., 10 Id. 393; Stackhouse" v. Halsey, 3 Johns. Ch. 74. "Month," when used in contracts or deeds, must be construed, where the parties have not themselves given to it a definition, and there is no legislative provision on the subject, to mean calendar and not lunar months. The term is thus construed in a lease by the state of Indiana. Sheets v. Selden, 2 Wall. 177. " Months," in an obligation, should be construed to mean calendar months.

Hardin v. Major, 4 Bibb, 104; Shapley u.

Garey, 6 Serg. ^ R. 539. " Month," in the former New York statute relating to the notices to be given in cases of sales under powers in mortgages, means a lunar and not a calendar month.

Loring V. Hailing, 15 Johns. 119.

In Massachusetts, " month " is now, by statute, deemed to mean a calendar month. Such was the construction given to it by the decisions of the supreme court, with reference to its use in mercantile contracts and legal proceedings.

Hunt v. Holden, 2 Mass. 170, note: Avery v. Pixley, 4 Id. 460.

Now, by statute, in New York, " month," in any statute, contract, or other instrument, means calendar month, unless otherwise expressed.

1 Bev. Stat. 606, § i.

The term month, as used in the Alabama act of 1843, regulating the proceedings on the settlement of insolvent estates, means a calendar month.

Bartol v. Calvert, 21 Ala. 42.

The months allowed by statute for the redemption of land sold under a decree of foreclosure, or on execution, are calendar, not limar, months.

Gross v. Fowler, 21 Cal. 392.

The term months, in the Delaware statute limiting indictments for " horse-racing, cock-iighting," &c., is to be construed lunar months.

State v. Jacobs, 2 Harr. 548.

When parties contract for the performance of an act during the first half of any month containing thirty-one days, they contract that it shall be performed by noon of the sixteenth day.

Grosvenor v. MaglU, 37 III.

239. " Month," in section 8 of the Indiana general railroad law, means thirty days. Heaston V. Cincinnati, &c.

E. E. Co., 16 Ind. 275.

The months referred to in the act of 1790, ch. 101, concerning the publication of notices, &c., are calendar months.

Glenn 17.

Smith, 17 Md. 260. " Six months," in a bank charter, was held to mean calendar months, in Union Bank of Georgetown v. Forrest, 3 Crunch C. a.

218.

A notice of thirty days, given during a calendar month which contains but thirty days, is a "month's notice."

People v. Ulrich, 2 Abb. Pr. 28.

An agreement to forbear the collection of money for " twelve months " means twelve calendar months. Satterwhite u.

Burwell, 6 Jones L. 92. " One month," as used in N. C. Const, art.

4, § 15, relating to the term of imprisonment, defining jurisdiction, &c., is not synonymous with " thirty days," as used in the N. C. act of 1873, ch. 133, § 19, prescribing the penalty for one's not returning his tax-list. State v. Upchurch, 72 N. C. 146. " For the space of one month after the return-day," and " within one month from the return-day," are equivalent expressions.

Gore V. Hedges, 7 T. B. Mon. 520.

Where a month is referred to, in legal proceedings, it will be understood to be of the current year, unless, from the connection, it is apparent that another is intended. Tillson V. Bowley, 8 Me. 163; Kelley v. Gilman, 29 N. H. 385. authoritative decision. Moot, n., or, more frequently, moot court: an assembly held for the discussion of law questions or fictitious cases. Moot, adj., or mooted: proposed for discussion; also, undecided, doubtful.