Case Name: The State against Thomas Jackson
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1816-05
Citations: 4 N.J.L. 323
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State against Thomas Jackson.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
The State against Thomas Jackson.
ON CERTIORARI.
Time of filing plea unvent laws.
JACKSON, applied to the Common Pleas of Middlesex ccmirfcy for the benefit of the insolvent laws of the state, The hearing was ordered on the 24th of October, 1815, at which time John R. Hamilton and Robert Davison, two of his creditors, made affidavit according to the statute, that they believed and undertook to shew, that Jackson had not made a fair and honest surrender of all his estate to and for the use of his creditors. Whereupon Jackson was remanded to prison, with an order that he and his creditors appear before the court on the first day of the next term. On the 28th of October, Jackson filed his declaration, under the statute. On the 17th day of November, said creditors filed their plea. On the 20th of November, the court at a special meeting, ordered Jackson to be discharged, without any trial by jury, or trial and decision on the issue joined between the parties. Of this special meeting, no notice was given to the creditors. The creditors brought this certiorari, to remove the proceedings into this Court, that the judgment of the Pleas might be reversed: and the question presented, was whether the plea was filed in time ?
Williamson for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
By the Court.
By the statute, Pat. 186, sec. 7, the creditors must file their plea, within twenty days after the debtor has filed his declaration. In calculating the time, one of the days on which the declaration and plea are filed, is included and the other excluded, Here the declaration was filed on the 28th of October, the plea on the 17th of November. In*cluding one and excluding the other, the plea was filed in season, within twenty days. The court therefore erred in discharging the debtor. There ought to have been a trial of the issue by a jury. Let judgment and order of the court be reversed.
Den, Bray vs. Fen, Drake, 3 Hal. 303. Day vs. Hall, 7 Hal. 203.