Page images
PDF
EPUB

done on Monday, Jan. 16th; but this would only give a trifle over two weeks' actual notice.

The authorities which allow this construction concede that if the word "during" or "for the space of" three weeks were substituted in place of "for," twenty-one days' notice would be required.

r. Reed, 16 Barb. 347; Anon., 1 Wend. 90; Steinle v. Bell, 12 Abb. (N. S.) 171], says: "The period of a week, therefore, is seven full days, and when a publication is directed to be made twice a week for three weeks it means that there shall be a period of twenty-one days before the sale, calculated by weeks, during each of which two publications shall be made, and this shall occur without regard to the day of the week when the publication was commenced." This decision has not, however, led to a relaxation of the practice. The following cases, also, are against holding a publication, which literally complies with the statute as to number and frequency of insertions, defective, because the first publication is not sufficiently long previous to the event: Garrett v. Moss, 20 Ill. 549, where a notice of sale of mortgaged premises was ordered in the decree to be advertised in a newspaper for three weeks successively," and there were twenty-one days between the date of the notice and the day of sale, and there were nineteen days intervening between the first publication and the day of sale, and there were three publications of the notice, but it was held, that, while it may have been the intention of the court that twenty-one full days should intervene between the first publication and the sale, the above order would admit of another construction, and as no one was injured, the decree of the court below, upholding the sale was affirmed.

[ocr errors]

This case was followed in Pearson v. Bradley, 48 Ill. 250, on a bill filed to set aside a sheriff's sale of land claimed by plaintiff, on the ground that the notice of the sale was not published for three full weeks from the first publication to the day of sale. The advertisement was on the 4th, 11th, and 18th, for a sale on the 20th. The statute (1857) required that notice shall be "published for three successive weeks, once in each week, in a newspaper." Held, on the authority of Garrett v. Moss (above), that the notice was sufficient. It must be observed that the law does not require three weeks' notice, nor a publication “for the space of" three weeks. Decree therefore reversed.

Swett v. Sprague, 55 Me. 190. Here, under the act for abatement of nuisances, which required notice thereof to be published in certain newspapers, three weeks successively," a notice was published on the 15th, 22d, and 29th, for a hearing which took place on the 30th. Held, that notwithstanding the last day of publication was only one day before the hearing, this was publication for "three weeks successively," and sufficient.

Frothingham r. March, 1 Mass. 247. Here, under section 6 of the Act of Feb. 14, 1789, providing that notice of an administrator's sale of real estate shall be by printing a notification three weeks successively in such newspaper," etc. Held, that notice was sufficient, although neither of the three insertions was thirty days previous to the sale. The opposite construction was contended for in view of the fact that another former mode of giving notice (optional with this) was "30 days' public notice by posting."

This case was followed in Dexter v. Shepard, 117 Mass. 480, 485, holding that the first publication of a notice of a sale under a power contained in a mortgage, which requires the notice to be published once each for three successive weeks," need not be made three weeks before the time appointed for the sale. The advertisement here was on Oct. 16, 23, and 30, for a sale on Nov. 5. Therefore the mortgagor's bill to redeem was dismissed. Frothingham v. March, 1 Mass. 247, was also approved in 5 N. Y. 515, and

21 N. Y. 153.

Order to publish twice in each

JANUARY 1905.

Instance of Ordinary Method showing the two requirements satisfied. week for three successive weeks preceding the sale.

S M T W Th F S

S

M T W Th F

S

S M T W Th F S S M T W Th F S

S

M T

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

[merged small][ocr errors]

DECEMBER, 1904.

Publish again in this same week.

Day of supposed first publication.

Again twice in this week:-Usually, but not necessarily, on the same days of the week as in preceding or following week.

Again twice in this week.

first publication is on the 2d. Earliest possible day of sale, if

If publication is made in two papers it is usually but not necessarily on the same days in each paper.

These publications make "twice in each week for three successive weeks immediately preceding the sale

"

Counting from first publication (exclusive of the day) to day of sale (inclusive), makes first publication twenty-one days before sale.

to sell later in a week without losing time.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21

22 23

Instance of Method common when desired

DECEMBER, 1904.

[blocks in formation]

These publications are deemed to make twice in each week for three successive weeks, as above.

The extra advertisement in the preceding week makes the first publication 21 days before sale.

'The only objection, if any, to this method is that the week of the sale is not wholly a week "preceding the sale," in the fullest sense. The other method is preferable. See paragraph 7, p. 352, and note 70.

In accordance with the other cases above stated that hold "for," in this connection, to be equivalent to "during," careful practitioners, acting under such a direction, allow twenty-one days, or forty-two, if six weeks are mentioned, beginning the count on the day after the first publication and fixing the act upon the twenty-first or forty-second day or a later day. It is better to allow a margin and fix a day not before the twenty-second day or the forty-third day after, and exclusive of the first publication, as a safe and convenient rule for avoiding all doubt.

4. Computing number of days.]-In counting the number of days, the day of first publication is to be excluded, and the day of sale or return day, or other fixed limit, or the day which completes the full period of publication, to be included."

66

The date of the notice does not avail: the computation is from actual first publication. When the number of days is to be considered to see that the adverse party has a notice of adequate length, it is computed beginning with the day after the first publication, and ending on the day fixed or limited for acting on the notice, not from the first to the last publication.67

In Colton r. Rupert, 60 Mich. 318, 27 N. W. Rep. 520, where a period of less than forty-two days was held to satisfy a requirement (perhaps that of 2 Mich. Comp. L. 176, § 82) of publication for six successive weeks, stress was laid on the fact that no action was taken thereon until the entire expira tion of the week in which the order was last published.

In Calvert . Calvert, 15 Col. 390, 24 Pac. Rep. 1043, the court held that "once a week for four successive weeks" did not mean four weeks of seven days each, and that publication was complete on the day in the fourth week when the summons is published, although less than twenty-eight days have elapsed since the day of first publication.

Forsyth v. Warren, 62 Ill. 68; Brown v. City of Chicago, 117 Ill. 21. 7 N. E. Rep. 108 (assessment sale notice); Beckwith v. Douglass, 25 Kans. 229; Vairin v. Edmonson, 10 Ill. 270; Brod v. Heymann, 3 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 396; Gray v. Worst, 129 Mo. 122.

In Hill v. Pressley, 96 Ind. 447, it was held, that the common statute providing that time is to be computed by excluding the first and including the last did not apply to defeat a sale where, including both days, the full number of weeks had been allowed.

The New York statute expressly entends the rule to publications of notice. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 787.

66 Pope r. Headen, 5 Ala. 433.

67 Howard . Hatch, 29 Barb. 297. Ejectment by one claiming under the purchaser at mortgagee's sale against mortgagor's vendee in possession. Notice first published April 30, and last on July 16 (twelve times in twelve successive weeks) for sale on July 24. Objected that all the publications were made within seventy-eight days. Held, that, inasmuch as the first publication was eighty-four days prior to the day of sale, the notice was sufficient. Market Nat. Bank r. Pacific Nat. Bank, 89 N. Y. 397. For other cases, see note 64, supra.

5. Additional days.]— It will be seen above that an extra day is often added for the purpose of making out the twenty-one, although it being the only day in its own week, it does not make that week count as a week of publication. It is also the practice to advertise on the day of sale, and, if the day is in the middle or latter part of the week, to get another insertion in; but these are for the purposes of desired publicity, and not necessary to satisfy the statute.68

6. Application to various proceedings.]- The language of the various provisions of the New York Code of Civil Procedure, which require publication of notices relating to the future, are appended in a note, so that the reader may test for himself the application of these principles.

68 See Young v. Fowler, 73 Hun, 179, 25 N. Y. Supp. 875; Horn v. Ind. Nat. Bank, 125 Ind. 381; Dexter v. Cranston, 41 Mich. 448.

69 Creditors and parties in interest.—“ Once in each week for six successive weeks." Notice to incumbrancers of reference in partition. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 1562.

-"Once in each week for at least three successive weeks," and as much longer as the court may direct. Notice to creditors or persons entitled to come in and contribute to the expenses and share the benefit of an action brought by another on his own and their behalf. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 786.

At least once in each of ten weeks immediately preceding the day in which cause is to be shown." Order that creditors show cause why insolvent should not be discharged (N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 2165), or be exempted from arrest and imprisonment. Id., § 2192. "Six weeks is substituted for "ten," if all creditors reside within 100 miles of the place for showing cause. Id., § 2165.

-“Once in each week for the four weeks immediately preceding the application." Notice to non-resident, whose residence is unknown, of an application for moneys in court on partition. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 1564.

Once at least in each of the three weeks immediately preceding the time fixed therein for showing cause." Order to show cause in proceeding for voluntary dissolution of corporation. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 2424.

-"At least once in each week for twelve successive weeks" before an issue of fact is brought to trial. Attorney-General's notice of ejectment by the State. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 1978.

Order that creditors of a corporation defendant exhibit, and prove, etc., "within such a reasonable time, not less than six months from the first publication of notice of the order, as the court directs." N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 1807.

Debtors." At least once in each of the twelve weeks immediatly preceding the day of sale." Notice of foreclosure by advertisement. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 2388.

Eminent domain.-" Once in each week, for at least three successive weeks." Sheriff's notice of intended execution of writ to assess damages in proceedings of eminent domain by the State. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 2108.

"At least once in each week for three successive weeks." Notice by Attorney-General or District Attorney to show cause why inquisition of daniages in proceedings in eminent domain by the State should not be confirmed. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 2112.

« PreviousContinue »