
    ALLEN & DEBLOIS vs. THEIR CREDITORS.
    APPEAL FROM THE PARISH COURT, FOR THE PARISH AND CITV Off NEW-ORLEANS.
    Opposition to the appointment of syndics, by a creditor, must be made within the ten days next following the appointment before the notary.
    So where the tenth day following the appointment of syndics, was Sunday, and the opposition of a creditor was filed on Monday, being the eleventh day thereafter t Held-, that it was in time, because all judicial proceedings are forbidden on Sundays, and the party is entitled to his ten full legal days.
    The plaintiffs filed their petition the 5th June, 1834, and made a cession of their property for the benefit of their creditors, which was accepted by the judge, and a meeting oí*their creditors ordered to take place before a notary public, on the 23d of the same month.
    The proceedings of the creditors before the notary, closed on 0f jLm0j an(j were returned into court. The plaintiffs were appointed their own syndics.
    On the 7th of July, following, M'Mahon and wife filed their opposition to the proceedings of the creditors in appointing syndics, and denying to the insolvents the right to be syndics, or to obtain the benefit of the insolvent laws, on various grounds. This opposition was objected to, and a rule taken by the syndics of the creditors to show cause why it should not be dismissed, as not having been filed until after the expiration of the legal delay allowed by law.
    On hearing the rule, the parish judge was of opinion the opposition was not filed in time ; and he made an order dismissing it.- The opposing creditors appealed.
    It appeared in proof that the tenth day after the proceedings before the notary closed was Sunday, and that the opposition was filed on Monday.
    
      Hoffman and Eustis, for the appellants.
    1. This opposition was first recognised and contested, on grounds other than those of not being filed in time. It could not be contested afterwards, on the ground of not being filed in time. 5 Louisiana Reports, 236.
    2. The time allowed within which to file an opposition, had not expired when this was offered, because the tenth day was Sunday, which should not be counted.
    3. Sunday being the day on which, according to the Code of Practice, article 318, the opposition was to be made, and not being counted, the party had all the next day to file "his opposition.
    
      Benjamin and Pierce; contra.
    
    1. The meeting of creditors was closed before the notary on the 26th June. The opposition was filed on the 7th July, i. e. not within the ten days neat following the appointment of the 
      syndics, as required by the Act of 1817, section 18. 2 Moreau's Digest, 429. '
    tii^appoinünent of syndics, by a made IktHn the ten days next following the appointment, before the notary.
    So, where the tenth day following the appointment of syndics, was Sunday, and the opposition*of a creditor was filed on Monday, being the lltl* day thereafter: Held, that it was in time, because all judicial proceedings are forbidden on Sundays, and the party is entitled to Ills ten full le&al day-s-
    2. Being after the lapse'of ten days, it is too late and must be dismissed. 2 Martin, N. S., 57. 2 Louisiana Reports, 217 and 358.
    3. The proceedings of the creditors having become final by the mere lapse of the ten days, and no judgment of homologation being required by law, the proceedings form res judicata as against the opposing creditors. See case of Ooodale vs. His Creditors, recently decided. ,
   Bullard, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question in this case is, whether the opposition was filed within the delay allowed by law. It is now settled that such opposition must be made within the ten- days next following the appointment of syndics before the notary.

In the present case, the tenth day was Sunday, and the opposition was filed on the next day. It cannot be said that the opponent was too late on Saturday night, because the law allows ten days, and at least any time within the tenth day would suffice. But the tenth day happened to be not a a judicial day, and it was impossible to file the opposition on that day, all judicial proceedings being forbidden. If we should say, that the opposition comes too late, we should deprive the opposing creditor of one day allowed by law, or compel him to do, what is legally impossible. We are, therefore, of opinion, that the opposition was not too late.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the Parish Court be reversed and annulled, and the rule discharged, and the case remanded for proceedings on the opposition according to law; the appellees paying the costs of this appeal.  