
    Louis H. Everts et al. v. Abram C. Fisk.
    
      Return?of summons — Computation of time.
    
    A justice’s summons returnable not less than two days from its date is defective if made returnable on the second day after it was issued.
    Error to Branch.
    Submitted Oct. 26.
    Decided Oct. 27.
    
      Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Hiram, Kimball for plaintiffs in error.
    One day is included and the other excluded in computing time for the service of papers: Cowen’s Treatise 295 ; Small v. Edrick 5 Wend. 138; Arnold v. Nye 23 Mich. 286 ; Warren v. Slade id. 1; Eaton v. Peck 26 Mich. 57; a six day summons returnable on the morning of the 8th may be served on the afternoon of the 2d: Road v. Haywood 10 Wend. 422; Allen v. Mills 26 Mich. 123; Allen v. Stone 9 Barb. 60; Taylor v. Corbiere 8 How. Pr. 385; it is only when service is required to be a certain number of days before a specified day that both the day of issue and the day of return are excluded : Sallee v. Ireland 9 Mich. 157 ; Dayton v. McIntyre 5 How. Pr. 117.
    
      John R. Champion for defendant in error.
    Time does not begin to run on legal process until the day on which it is issued is passed : Bigelow v. Willson 1 Pick. 485 ; Cornell v. Moulton 3 Den. 12; Farwell v. Rogers 4 Cush. 460; Oatman v. Walker 33 Me. 67; Dousman v. O'Malley 1 Doug. (Mich.) 450.
   Graves, J.

It is provided in the statute concerning courts held by justices of the peace, that if the plaintiff shall be a non-resident of the county, a summons may be made returnable not less than two nor more than four days from the date thereof, and shall be served at least two days before the time of appearance mentioned therein. Comp. L. § 5264. The plaintiffs in this case being non-residents began the action by summons issued June 25, 1879, and returnable on the 27th and served on the 25th, and the justice sustained the proceeding notwithstanding' the defendant’s objection seasonably made. The circuit court on special appeal ruled that the process was erroneous and reversed the judgment. This was correct. Sallee v. Ireland 9 Mich. 154; Warren v. Slade 23 Mich. 1; Powers' Appeal 29 Mich. 504.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.  