TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Smith v. Gale

Smith v. Gale, 137 U.S. 577 (1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 5, 1891
Docket
No. 580
Judges
Fuller
Citations
137 U.S. 57711 S. Ct. 18534 L. Ed. 7921891 U.S. LEXIS 2045
Syllabus
The day of the entry of judgment or decree must be excluded in computing the time for tailing an appeal or bringing a writ of error to review it.
Summary
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF DAKOTA. This was a motion to dismiss an appeal, on the ground that it “was not taken within the time prescribed by law.” It appeared that the final decree was entered of record by the Supreme Court of the Territory of Dakota, on the 25th of May, 1886. The appeal from this decision was allowed, th% supersedeas bond was offered and the citation was signed on the 25th day of May, 1888,'by the chief' justice of that court, and these papers were all filed on that day in the clerk’s office of that court. Final judgment was entered in this action on the 25th day of May, 1886, and the appeal to this court was allowed on the 25th day of May, 1888. This motion is made upon the ground' that the appeal was not taken within the prescribed time. It is a general rule that where the computation is to be made from an act done, the day on which the act is done is to be included. Arnold v. United States, 9 Cranch, 104. In common and popular usage the day a quo has always been included, and such has been the rule both of the Eoman and the common law. Griffith v. Bogert, 18 How. 158. These cases were cited with approval íd Dutcher v. Wright, 94 U. S. 553. The foregoing cases are distinguishable from another class of cases wherein the computation is to be made/wm a particular day, and not from am act done. The general current of the latter authorities is that the day thus designated is excluded. Sheets v. Selden, 2 Wall. 177; Best v. Polk, 18 Wall. 112. The case falls within the rule laid down in the former class of decisions. The éntry of judgment was an act done on the 25th day of May, 1886, and inasmuch as no fraction of a day can be considered, it must be referred to the earliest moment of that day, and the day should be counted. By counting that day the two years within which the appeal could be taken expired on the 24th day of May, 1888, and the appeal was allowed one day too late.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Fuller

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.

In computing the two years after the entry of a final judgment, decree or order, sought to be reviewed in this court, within which the writ of error must be brought or the appeal taken, the day of the entry of such judgment, decree or order should be excluded.

Credit Co.

v. Arkansas Central Railway Co., 128 U. S. 258 .

The motion to dismiss the appeal in this cause is therefore Denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1893: 11905: 11906: 11912: 11918: 11932: 11934: 11935: 11950: 118932026peak 1893 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stringer v. United States90 F. Supp. 375 (Ct. Cl. 1950)
  2. United States v. Beaman61 F.2d 493 (5th Cir. 1932)
  3. Pillsbury v. Alaska Packers Ass'n78 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1935)
  4. Wheeler v. Lumbermen's Mut. Casualty Co.6 F. Supp. 532 (D. Me. 1934)
  5. J. D. Randall Co. v. Foglesong Mach. Co.200 F. 741 (6th Cir. 1912)
  6. First Nat. Bank of Haskell v. Drew1918 OK 4, 169 P. 1092

Most recent

  1. Stringer v. United States90 F. Supp. 375 (Ct. Cl. 1950)
  2. Pillsbury v. Alaska Packers Ass'n78 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1935)
  3. Wheeler v. Lumbermen's Mut. Casualty Co.6 F. Supp. 532 (D. Me. 1934)
  4. United States v. Beaman61 F.2d 493 (5th Cir. 1932)
  5. First Nat. Bank of Haskell v. Drew1918 OK 4, 169 P. 1092
  6. J. D. Randall Co. v. Foglesong Mach. Co.200 F. 741 (6th Cir. 1912)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Credit Co. v. Ark. Cent. Ry. Co., 128 U.S. 258 (1888) 88

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list