who was detained there for several days thereafter. It was necessary for the parties to remain on the wharf, watching for the boat during the night, in order to get passage, and the wharf was a most inclement place at that time; the night being unusually cold, and the situation hard for the plaintiff's wife, from which she suffered pain and incurred injury. The jury on these facts awarded exemplary damages, and the Supreme Court sustained the verdict. This decision seems to have been substantially correct. A verdict awarding damages to the ex

tent of what the plaintiff or his wife
might have earned in the time would
surely be nothing less than an insult.
In an action for damages by a pas-
senger on a steamboat against the owner
of the boat for injuries received by the
explosion of a boiler, the plaintiff is en-
titled to recover for his bodily pain and
suffering: Swarthout v. The New Jersey
Steamboat Company, 46 Barb. 222.
There can be no doubt of the correctness
of the rule here laid down. The courts
all agree in this.

I. F. R.

United States Circuit Court, District of Louisiana.

THE CITIZENS' BANK ET AL. v. OBER ET AL.

IN RE YORK & HOOVER, BANKRUPTS.

The general rule in the computation of time within which an act is to be done is to exclude the first day and include the last.

This is the rule prescribed by the Bankrupt Act, unless the last day happens to fall on Sunday, in which case that day is excluded also. In all other cases Sundays are counted as other days.

A proceeding in bankruptcy from the filing of the petition to the discharge or refusal to discharge the bankrupt is a single case, and is subject to appeal or writ of error as such, but there may be a large number of cases or questions arising in the course of it, and these may be the subject of review by the Circuit Court by writ of error or appeal or petition to review, according to their nature.

If the matter is a suit at law or in equity, or a dispute by the assignee of a creditor's claim allowed, or a claim by a creditor wholly or in part rejected, then it must be brought before the Circuit Court by writ of error or appeal.

But all other cases or questions arising in the progress of a case in bankruptcy fall within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and must be brought before it by bill or petition to review.

The settlement of the status of a creditor's claim as to priority with respect to other liens is not the allowance or rejection of the claim meant by sect. 8, by which an appeal is given, and the proper mode of bringing such a matter before the Circuit Court is by petition to review.

An assignee made a sale of real estate of the bankrupt at which certain creditors purchased. The District Court confirmed the sale against the exceptions of other creditors, and made an order as to the priority of certain liens. Held, that this was a proceeding within the supervisory power of the Circuit Court, and should be brought before it by petition to review.

THIS was a petition of review of certain proceedings in bankruptcy in the District Court of Louisiana. Ober, Atwater & Co. claimed first mortgages on two plantations surrendered by the bankrupts, York & Hoover. They obtained an order for the sale of them, and purchased both at the assignee's sale. They applied for a rule to confirm the sale, and asked that the proceeds of sale be applied to the extinguishment of their mortgages. The Citizens' Bank and other creditors answered the rule, and alleged that the mortgage of Ober, Atwater & Co. on one of the plantations, had been extinguished, and on the other it was only second in rank. They further alleged that Ober, Atwater & Co. had influenced a competitor not to bid for one of the plantations, and had also made overtures to the solicitor of the assignee, calculated to give them an unjust preference over other creditors with respect to both. The District Court made the rule absolute, and the Citizens' Bank appealed, and also joined the other creditors in a petition of review to the Circuit Court.

Hyams & Jones, and Randolph, Singleton & Browne, for appellants, cited Judd v. Fulton, 10 Barb. 117; Snyder v. Warren, 2 Cowen 518; 6 Id. 605; Broom's Legal Maxims 22; Wathen v. Beaumont, 11 East 271; Story v. Elliott, 8 Cowen 28; McGill v. The Bank of U. S., 12 Wheat. 511; 2 Hill 375; Long v. Hughes, 1 Duvall (Ky. Rep.) 387; Fowler v. Smith, 1 Rob. 448; Jones v. Boyle, 14 La. 268; Gorham v. De Armas, 7 Martin 359; State v. Boyle, 9 La. Ann. 371.

R. & H. Marr, for appellees.

WOODS, J.-York and Hoover having been declared bankrupts by the adjudication of the District Court, E. E. Norton, their assignee, by H. D. Stone, his solicitor, filed a petition in said District Court, sitting as a Court of Bankruptcy, praying for an order to sell two plantations, the property of bankrupts. An order of sale was obtained, and under it a sale of the plantations, called respectively "White Hall" and "Home," was made on the 16th February 1869, and Ober, one of the creditors, became the purchaser thereof. On the day of February 1869 C. H. Slocomb, one of the creditors of York & Hoover, filed his petition in the District Court, setting forth the fact of the sale to Ober, that no deed had, at the time of filing his petition, been made by Norton,

the assignee, to Ober, charging that the sale was fraudulent, and therefore illegal and void, and praying, on behalf of himself and other creditors of York & Hoover, that Ober, Norton, the assignee, and others, show cause why the sale should not be set aside.

According to the prayer of this petition, an order was made as prayed for, and the parties named were cited to show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted. The minutes of the District Court of the date of March 19th 1869 show the following entry: No. 603. Matter of York & Hoover. On motion of H. D. Stone, attorney of E. E. Norton, and upon showing to the court that a sale was made of two plantations surrendered herein, namely, the "Home" and "White Hall" plantations, situated in the parish of Concordia (here follows a description of the two plantations), on the 16th of February 1869, and upon further showing to the court that the followingnamed parties appear to have had mortgages, privileges, claims, and liens upon said plantations (here follow the names of some fifty creditors), it is ordered that the parties above named, and the bankrupts, and all persons interested herein, show cause, on the 1st day of May 1869, at 11 o'clock A. M., why said sale should not be confirmed, and at the same time the priority and rank of said mortgages, privileges, liens, and claims be fixed and adjudicated; that, as so adjudicated, the same be directed to be paid; that notice thereof be given by publication in the New Orleans Republican for three days, the last publication to be at least ten days before such hearing.

After this order to show cause was made by the court, but precisely when, we are unable to ascertain from the papers submitted to us, the Citizens' Bank of Louisiana, and a large number of other creditors of York & Hoover, filed an exception to the rule, in which they set out various grounds why the sale should not be confirmed, and conclude by praying that the application of the assignee for the confirmation of the sale be refused and rejected, and that said sale be set aside and annulled.

On the day fixed for the hearing of the rule, the matter of the rule and exception thereto were referred by the District Court, sitting in bankruptcy, to a commissioner to ascertain and report upon the validity of the sale and the priority of the claims; and subsequently said commissioner reported that there was no fraud

or collusion in making the sale, and that certain mortgages held by Ober, Atwater & Co. on said White Hall and Home plantations were the first and best liens on those places respectively, and that the amount due on them was more than the proceeds of the sale.

Thereupon it was ordered by the court, on motion, that the report of the commissioner, if not opposed within three days, be approved and homologated.

Exceptions were filed to the report of the commissioner, and afterwards, to wit, on 11th January 1870, the District Court confirmed the sale, but reserved the question of priority of mortgages and liens for further argument.

On the 31st of March 1870, the District Court declared that the mortgages of Ober, Atwater & Co. were the first lien on said plantations and on the proceeds of the sale thereof, and directed them to be paid in preference to any of the other mortgages set up in the opposition of the creditors of York & Hoover, and directed the money arising from the sale to be paid to Ober, Atwater & Co.

On the 5th of April 1870, an application was made for a rehearing on the matters embraced in the decision of the court, and on the 27th of April a rehearing was refused.

The Citizens' Bank and other creditors of York & Hoover, on the 9th of May, took an appeal from the order of the court of March 31st, which in effect dated from the refusal for rehearing on the 27th of April. And on the said 9th of May said Citizens' Bank and other creditors filed in this court a petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court, under the 2d section of the Bankrupt Act, and praying that the orders and decrees of the District Court above recited be set aside, the sale of said plantations declared null and void, and the same ordered to be resold, and that their mortgages be decreed to have priority.

The case has been heard upon two questions:

1. Whether the appeal was taken within the time limited by law; and,

2. Whether the case presented by the petition of the Citizens' Bank and others was a case for the supervisory jurisdiction of the court, and whether the court has jurisdiction thereof.

1. As intimated during the argument, we are of opinion, that if this were a proper case for appeal, the appeal was taken too late;

if Sundays are counted, the delay of ten days allowed for the appeal had expired before the appeal was taken: unless Sundays are expressly excepted in the statute, they are to be counted; the language of the 8th section of the Bankrupt Act is, "no appeal shall be allowed from the District to the Circuit Court, unless it is claimed and notice thereof given to the clerk, &c., &c., within ten days after the entry of the decree or decision appealed from." The rule for computing the number of days within which an appeal is allowed, is expressly declared by the 48th section of the Bankrupt Act, as follows: "In all cases in which any particular number of days is prescribed by this act, &c., &c., for the doing of any act, the same shall be reckoned in the absence of any expression to the contrary, exclusive of the first and inclusive of the last day, unless the last day shall fall on Sunday, in which case the time shall be reckoned exclusive of that day also." The fair and, as it seems to us, unavoidable inference is, that where Sunday is not the last day, it is not to be excluded. Applying this rule, and excluding the 27th of April, the day on which the decision was signed, the delay for appeal in this case expired with the 7th of May; the appeal not having been taken till the 9th, it was two days too late.

2. The other question presented is, whether this is a proper case for the supervisory jurisdiction of the court.

By the 2d section of the Bankrupt Act it is provided that the Circuit Courts, in the districts where proceedings in bankruptcy are pending, shall have a general superintendence and jurisdiction of all cases and questions arising under this act; and, except where special provision is otherwise made, may, upon bill, petition, or other proper process of any party aggrieved, hear and determine the case as a court of equity.

"The only construction which gives due effect to all parts of this section is that which, on the one hand, excludes from the category of general superintendence and jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, the appellate jurisdiction defined by the 8th section; and on the other, brings within that category all decisions of the District Court or district judge at Chambers, which cannot be reviewed upon appeal or writ of error under the provisions of that section:" CHASE, C. J., In re Alexander, 8 Am. Law Reg. 423.

By the 8th section of the act it is provided that appeals may be taken from the District to the Circuit Courts in all cases in equity,