Case ID: doug_1/html/0450-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Ransom, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dousman v. O’Malley.
    Where a statute requires that process should be served a certain number of days before the return day, both the day of service and the day of return must be excluded, in the computation of the time; the latter being excluded by the terms of the statute, and the former by the rule of construction provided by R. S. 3, § 3, subd. 11.
    
    This suit was commenced by attachment returnable to the Michilimackinae Circuit Court. On the 29th day of March, Dousman, the plaintiff, was served with a citation, under the provisions of the statute, (S. L. 1840, p. 53,) to appear before an Associate Judge of that Court, on the 1st day of April (then) next, at 9 o’clock A. M., and show cause why the attachment should not be dissolved. He appeared, and objected that the citation was not served upon him three entire days before the return day thereof. The objection was overruled; and the Judge proceeded to exercise jurisdiction, and dissolved the attachment. Whereupon, the plaintiff brought the proceedings before this Court by certiorari.
    
    
      H. T. Backus, for the plaintiff.
    
      H. H. Emmons, for the defendant.
   Ransom, C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The act of March 16, 1840, (S. L. 1840, p. 53,) under which the proceedings to dissolve the attachment were had, requires that the citation shall be served three days, at least, before the return day thereof. By the terms of this act, the return day is excluded in the computation of time. The Revised Statutes provide that, “in the construction of the statutes of this state,” “ any specified number of days shall be construed to mean entire days.” R. S. 3, ^ 3, subd. 11. This rule of construction would exclude the day of service, that being but the fraction of a day; and, but two entire days having intervened, between the day of service and the return day of the citation, the service was clearly insufficient. The Judge erred, therefore, in taking jurisdiction, and dissolving the attachment, and the judgment rendered by him must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.