CH. 27. minutes longer than it should be, or longer than the solar year. This alone between 1752 and 2400, makes a difference of 7128 minutes between statute and solar time. Towards correcting this error, the act in this period omits five leap years or bissextile days, containing 7200 minutes, that is, seventy-two minutes too much. There was this former error, and it arose thus: Julius Cæsar formed the Julian year by adding leap year every fourth year, making in each four years period, three years to consist of 365 days each, and one of 366 days, average year 365 days, six hours; that is, eleven minutes more than the true solar year. This eleven minutes from his time to the council of Nice, A. D. 325, amounted to a very considerable error, which at that council was set right. But from that time to the year 1752 they made 15,697 minutes; equal to ten days, twenty-one hours, and thirty-seven minutes; that is, the eleven days (nearly) omitted in Sept. 1752, were two hours, twenty-three minutes too much; making this statute year begin so much before the true solar year. The operation of this act is to omit after January 2400 three leap years, or three bissextile days, containing 4320 minutes in each 400 years. In that time the eleven minutes make 4400 minutes, eighty minutes more than the three omitted days, so that four statute centuries will be eighty minutes longer than four solar centuries. This too large deduction of two hours and twenty-three minutes, and of 72 minutes will be corrected by the operation of the eighty minutes in 1075 years, and solar and statute time will come together in the year 3475, and after that the solar will gain of the statute time twenty minutes in a century. 3. A. D. 1582, Pope Gregory XIII. ordered, that once in 133 years a day should be taken out of the calendar, to wit: from the year 1600 every hundredth year was to be common, but every four hundredth was to be bissextile. This was called new style, which the English statute in substance adopted, ART. 4. Reasons for the lunar months. § 1. As every one now almost thinks of the calendar, and not of the lunar month in speaking and writing, a question naturally arises, why if a statute speaks of a month simply, a lunar month of twenty-eight days is to be understood in any country recognising the calendar month. The truth is, it is the ancient law founded in reasons which have ceased to exist. The Greeks computed by lunar months; twelve of which made 354 days, eight hours, forty-eight minutes, and for the odd days, formed a cycle of nineteen years, each twelve months and seven intercalated moons; but these fell short of nineteen full years almost ninety minutes. The Romans and Northern nations also calculated in many respects by moons, and a lunar revo- 2. The Hegira or Mahometan Era began July 16, 622, and July 16, 1800, our Æra, should be July 16, 1178, in the Mahometan. But as the Mahometan year consists of twelve moons, that is, 354 days, eight hours, forty-eight minutes, it is ten days, twenty-one hours, and one minute shorter than the Christian or Julian year. Hence, a century in one calendar is very different from a century in the other. CH. 27. Art. 4. Pixley & al. Avery & al. Kennett's 3. The Romans regulated their calendar three times; quities 86, &c. first, by Romulus: second, by Numa; and third by Julius Cæsar, as above. Romulus divided his year into ten months of unequal length, Mars or March the first month, Mars being the father of the state. Numa added January and February, but there was but little accuracy till Cæsar's time. Till his time the priests of superstition made the calculations; the months began on the first day of the moon. This was the calendar whence the Nones and Ides were reckoned. Calendar from calo to call the people together by an inferior priest to hear the regulated days of the month; Ides about the middle of it. Also the Jews regulated their passover partly by the moon ; 3 Prid. Cona. so Christians their Easter in commemoration of the resurrec- 247, 254. tion of Christ. The passover was on the fourteenth day of the moon, which fourteenth day fell on the vernal equinox, or after it, as the moon happened to be. This equinox being fixed to be on the twenty-first of March at the council of Nice, held A. D. 325. While many of the Jews were Christians all kept their Easter on the day of the passover, and until about A. D. 190; but when the Jews generally abandoned Christianity, the Christians, except those of Asia, would no longer keep their Easter on the day of this Jewish festival, but postponed it to the Sunday next after. So now no Easter Sunday can be earlier than the twenty-second of March, nor later than April 25. The dispute began about Easter among Christians; hence A. D. 197, the bishop of Rome excommunicated those of Asia, because they would not adopt the said Sunday. Nor have Christians since been able to agree in calculating the precise times of the moon so as to agree in the time of Easter. CH. 27. The word month may mean lunar or calendar, according to Art. 5. the intention of the parties contracting. 1 Maule & Sel. R. 111, 118, Lang v. Gale. § 4. A stranger to a deed is not held to state its precise date, Partridge v. Strange & al., Plowden 77; Dyer 74 S. 2 Salk. 462. C., and it is enough he state the substance of it. -1 Cro. 14, case of Drury.-12 Mod. 204, Pullen v. Benson. 1Evans' view ART. 5. The day of the date how construed. § 1. An impossible date is as no date, and the plt. must declare of the time of making the contract; and in said Drury's case it was held that the delivery of the deed is the true date, and not the one expressed in the deed; for the deed takes effect from its delivery, and hence that is its date when it begins to ope rate. Cowp. 714, 725, Pugh & § 2. When a power is given to A, in a marriage settlement, ux. v. Duke of Leeds. to lease lands for 21 years, in possession and not in reversion, Pow.onPow. A made a lease of 21 years to his only daughter, to com433 to 541.-mence from the day of the date. The court held this a good of Ld. Mans- lease, and Lord Mansfield and the court considered every case field's decis- on the subject, and decided that from may mean inclusive or ions 221; exclusive of the day, according to the context and subject matter; and the court will construe it so as to effectuate the deeds of the parties, and not to destroy them. and 3 D. & E. 623. 3 Bl. Com. 318. 1 Caines' R. 153. 1 Mass. R. 143, Com §3. A day's journey in the Civil law, and in the law of England, is estimated 20 miles; so in the law of New York, as to notice. 4. Where there is one date, as the 15th of October, 1802, in the penalty of a bond, and another in the condition, as Ocmonwealth v. tober 25, 1802, the date in the penal part was taken as the Hearsey. true date. 12 Mod. 401, 5. In this case it was held that if A give a general release Bishop &c. v. to B, on a certain day, and he the same day gives a bill or Bridges. note to A, bearing even date with the release, this shall not discharge the bill or note; but the release shall be deemed to be first made. Marius Lex. Mer. 24, Chit ty on Bills 105, is cited 6 T. R. 212. 6. If a bill be payable on a certain day, it is not payable till the day is expired, and no action can be commenced till the next day. But it is to be considered that by a modern commercial rule, on bills and negotiable notes, the day of the date is not computed, but the day of the demand or payment. And 66 a bill payable at so many days sight, is to be accounted so many days next after the bill shall be accepted, or else protested for non-acceptance." Where four days may be from Wednesday to Tuesday, as four days to perfect bail after exception; exception on Wednesday, party has to the next TuesNorth v. Ev- day; for Wednesday is exclusive, Sunday is no day, and Monday is all reckoned inclusive. 2 H. Bl. 56, ans. CH. 27. Art. 6. Miller. ART. 6. The effect of altering the date of a bill. $1. In this case the court held, Lord Kenyon, Ashhurst, and Gross, Justices, contra Buller, that where the date of a bill accepted was altered by one unknown, from March 26th to March 20th, 4 T. R. 320, the bill was, thereby, rendered void-and that no action lay Master v. upon it against the acceptor, even in favor of an innocent en- Officer alleg dorsee, for a valuable consideration; that the date is a materi- ed to have al part of the bill; and that there is no difference between a been appointed one day, bill and a deed. If any however, the law will accord most proof apagainst the alterations of bills that circulate in the market. pointed a day Deed be altered by consent of parties in a material part. continued on before, and may In this case the court decided, that if a note be given to pay that alleged, in sixty days, the court will supply the words from the date, is good, 2 Day's Ca. and construe it to exclude the day of the date; for otherwise 528.-See a note payable in one day, would be payable immediately af- Ch. 97, a. 3. ter making it. 13 Johns. R. 470. -8 Mass. R. 453, Henry v. 19. 2. This court decided, that if a statute be passed on the Jones, cited 1st. day of July, 1812, as the double duty act of Congress 2 Phil. Evid. was, to take effect from and after passing it, the day of pas- District sing the act is excluded, and it takes effect from that day. A Court Maine, Dec. 1812, writ of error was sued out, but dropt. So is Latless, ex'r. v. United States Holmes & al. T. R. 660; but secus Ch. 224, a. 7, s. 4. v. Patten & 451, Bailey & 3. This was assumpsit on several promissory notes, each al under $5, made by the defts. payable to bearer, all dated be- 6 Mass. R. fore April 1, 1805, not wholly in writing but partly printed. al, v. Taber By statute of 1804, ch. 58, no action could be maintained on & al. such notes issued after April 1, 1805. Held, the defts. must prove these notes issued after April 1, 1805, to bring them within the act, and that the plts. were not bound to prove the delivery to themselves. $4. October 2, 1775, Congress resolved that when the word month is used, a calendar month is meant. This was only making the common opinion of the country statute law. 3Cranch 229, 5. The bond declared on, bore date October 3, and the Cooke v. bond produced, on oyer, January 3, preceding. Deft. demur- Graham's red generally to the declaration-joinder-demurrer with- ad'mr. drawn and deft. pleaded general performance of the condition of the bond; plt. replied, and assigned a breach &c.; the deft. rejoined; to this rejoinder the plt. demurred specially, and assigned five causes of demurrer; judgment thereon for the plt.; deft. on leave filed an additioual plea; replication thereto, and judgment for the plt. below; deft. filed bills of exception &c. On error brought, Supreme Court of the United States held, 1st. The said variance as to the date of the bond was matter of substance and fatal. 2d. By the oyer, the bond was made part of the declaration. 3d. There was a bad declaration, a bad rejoinder, and a special demurrer by CH. 28. the plt. to the rejoinder. 4th. When the pleadings are thus Art. 1. spread on the record by a demurrer, it is the duty of the court to examine the whole, and go to the first error. 5th. When the special demurrer is by the plt., his own pleadings are to be scrutinized, and the court will notice what would have been bad on a general demurrer. 6th. This variance in the date of the bond had clearly been bad on general demurrer. When a note demandable immediately, is on interest from a month named, but no year, the month of the name is that nearest the date. 3 Caines' R. 89, Whitney v. Crosby. See Ch. 101, a. 3, s. 10. Mass. Act, CHAPTER XXVIII. ASSUMPSIT, RULES OF DAMAGES IN; DAMAGES HOW ASCER As the sole object of this action is to recover damages for a breach of contract or promise, the principles on which, and the rules by which damages are ascertained, may very properly be considered here. And though they are generally as certained by the jury in a late stage in the suit, yet rules in cases of contracts will generally be found, by which the jury is to be governed. It is best to bring these rules together in order to have a fair view of them. As by our law, an action must be brought before a Justice of the Peace, or in the Common Pleas, without an appeal, or with one, according to the sum the plt. recovers, it is best, and often necessary, before the plt. commences his action, to consider, and often accurately, by what rules, and on what ground, the sum he may recover in damages will be ascertained. The like inquiry is important in New York, and most of the other states. ART. 1. General principles. 1. By the act, it is provided that when the deft. does not appear "by himself or his attorney, his default shall be recorded, and the charge in the declaration shall be taken and deemed to be true, and the court thereupon shall give such damages as they shall find, on inquiry, that the plt. shall have sustained," unless he move for a jury of inquiry, to inquire into the damages. Hence by this act the plt., at his election, may have his damages assessed by the judges or the jury. Laws of Maine, Ch. 59. |