FRACTION OF A DAY. A portion of a day. The dividing a day.
Generally, the law does not allow the frac tion of a day, and the day on which an act is done must therefore be either entirely includ ed or excluded ; 2 Bla. Com. 141; Raym. 84 ; State v. Town of Park, 25 Fla. 371, 5 South. 818 ; President, etc., Portland Bank v. Bank, 11 Mass. 204; Duffy v. Ogden, 64 Pa. 240 ; In re Welman, 20 Vt. 653, Fed. Cas. No. 17,407 ; and, therefore, judgments enter ed on the same day are regarded as entered at the same time, and create liens equal in point of priority ; Rockhill v. Hanna, 4 Mc Lean 555, Fed. Cas. No. 11,980 ; Mechanics' Bank v. Gorman, 8 W. & S. (Pa.) 304 ; but this is merely a legal fiction, which does not apply where it is necessary to distinguish between the two parts of a day ; 3 Burr. 1344 ; 11 H. L. Cas. 411; and, therefore, it has been said that there is no such general rule of law, but that common sense and common justice sus tain the propriety of considering fractions of a day whenever it will promote the purposes of substantial justice ; First Nat. Bank v. Burkhardt, 100 U. S. 689, 25 L. Ed. 766; Grosvenor v. Magill, 37 Ill. 239; Tufts v. Carradine, 3 La. Ann. 430 ; thus, the bankrupt act of 1841 was repealed by the act of March 3, 1843, which was not signed by the president till the evening of that day ; proceedings in bankruptcy begun on the morning of that day were held to have been begun before the pass age of the act ; Louisville v. Bank, 104 U. S. 475, 26 L. Ed. 775, citing with approval In re Richardson, 2 Sto. 571, Fed. Cas. No. 11,777 ; tobacco stamped, sold, and removed in the morning of March 3, 1875, was not considered subject to an increased tax-rate imposed by the act of that date, which was not signed by the president until a later hour of that day ; Burgess v. Salmon, 97 U. S. 381, 24 L. Ed. 1104, approved in Louisville v. Bank, 104 U. S. 477, 26 L. Ed. 775 ; where a township voted aid bonds on the morning of an election day in Illinois, at which a con stitutional provision was adopted forbidding the issuing of such bonds, the court found as a fact that the township vote was had before the adoption of the constitution, and, there fore, sustained the validity of the bonds ; Louisville v. Bank, 104 U. S. 469, 26 L. Ed.
775. But it was held in Re Welman, Fed. Cas. No. 17,407; Wood v. Fort, 42 Ala. 641; that an act is in force all of the day in which it was approved ; and in New York that an act is not in force until the day after its ap proval ; In re Foley, 8 Misc. 57, 28 N. Y. Supp. 608.
Although the law does not generally con sider fractions of a day, yet when substan tial justice requires it, courts may ascertain the precise time when a statute is approved or an act done ; Taylor v. Brown, 147 U. S. 640, 13 Sup. Ct. 549, 37 L. Ed. 313. In U. S. v. Norton, 97 U. S. 170, 24 L. Ed. 907, follow ing Lapeyre v. U. S., 17 Wall. (U. S.) 191, 21 L. Ed. 606, the court held that the presi dent's proclamation of June 13, 1865, remov ing restrictions upon trade, etc., took effect as of the beginning of that day and refused to consider the fraction of a day. In com puting the time for the performance of official duties, each fraction of a day is to be con sidered as a full day.
The doctrine applies chiefly, If not entirely, to judicial and other public proceedings, and not to transactions of parties whose priority of right becomes a question of fact ; Maynard v. Esher, 17 Pa. 222. Thus judgments enter ed on the same day have equality of lien ; In re Boyers' Estate, 51 Pa. 432, 91 Am. Dec. 129; so of liens ; Appeal of Hendrickson, 24 Pa. 363 ; but a mortgage recorded on the same day as the entry of a judgment, but earlier in the day, has priority ; First Nat. Bank v. Burkhardt; 100 U. S. 689, 25 L. Ed. 766, citing Follett v. Hall, 16 Ohio 111, 47 Am. Dec. 365. Service of a declaration on the same day as filing, but earlier in the day, is good ; Rusk v. Van Benschoten, 1 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 149. See FROM; AGE; TIME; DAY; IN FANT; MAJORITY.