
    Edward Wheeler et al., Appellants &c., versus Newell Bent.
    This was an appeal claimed on the 13th of September, from a decree of the judge of prohate. Hilliard inquired whether it ought to be entered at this term, which began on the 17th of October, the St. 1817, c. 190, § 7, requiring such an appeal to be C£ proceeded upon at the next term of the Supreme Judicial Court, which shall be holden next after the expiration of thirty-four days after such appeal shall be made.” Reckoning the day on which the appeal was made as one of the thirty-four, the appeal should be entered at this term.
   Per Curiam.

Let it be entered accordingly. 
      
       Where computation of time is to be made from an act done, the day on which the act is done is to be included in the reckoning. Castle v. Burditt, 3 T. R. 623; S. P. Glassington, v. Rawlins, 3 East, 407; 4 Esp. R. 224. See Priest v. Tarlton, 3 N. Hamp. R. 93; State v. Jackson, 1 Southard, 323; Avery v. Stewart, 2 Connect. R. 77; Picket v. Allen, 10 Connect. R. 146.
      
        Aliter in Maine, where the exclusion of the day on which the act is done will prevent an estoppel or save a forfeiture. Windsor v. China, 4 Greenl., 298. See Sims v. Hampton, 1 Serg. & Rawle, 411.
     