Sunday is a dies non, and a power that may be exercised up to and including a given day of the month may generally, when that day happens to be Sunday, be exer cised on the succeeding day ; Street v. U. S., 133 U. S. 299, 10 Sup. Ct. 309, 33 L. Ed. 631. Sunday is said to be included in the compu tation when the time exceeds, and excluded when less than, seven days;- Snell v. Scott, 2 Mich. N. P. 108.
Where the last day wherein an act is to be performed falls on a Sunday, the act may be done on the succeeding day; Pressed SI C. Co. v. R. Co., 121 Fed. 609, 57 C. C. A. 635.
Sundays cannot be excluded in computing the time for signing bills of exception; Amer ican Tobacco Co. v. Strickling, 88 Md. 500, 41 Atl. 1083, 69 L. It. A. 909. A statute which declares that a holiday should be con sidered as Sunday applies only to public business, and where an option for stock ex pires on New Year's Day, the time was not extended to the succeeding day; Page v. Shainwald, 1E9 N. Y. 246, 62 N. E. 356, 57 L. R. A. 173.
See SUNDAY; DIES NON.
Deeds, bills of exchange, letters, and other written instruments are generally construed to have been made and issued at the time of their date, but the execution of a deed may be averred and proved according to the fact; 10 Exch. 40. Courts will always adopt that construction in the computation of time which will uphold and enforce, rather than destroy, bona fide transactions and titles, and whenever it is necessary to prevent a forfeiture or to effectuate the clear intention of the parties, the (Lies a quo will be includ ed; otherwise it will be excluded; Taylor v. Brown, 5 Dak. 335, 40 N. W. 525.
The law will take account of the fraction of a day when justice so requires; Gallagher v. Pub. Co., 75 N. J. Eq. 171, 71 Atl. 741, 138 Am. St. Rep. 514; Tower v. Stimpson, 175 Fed. 130.
The construction of contracts with regard to the time of performance is the same in equity as at law; but in case of mere delay in performance, a court of equity will in gen eral relieve against the legal consequences and decree specific performance upon equita ble terms notwithstanding the delay, if the matter of the contract admits, of that form of remedy. In such cases it is said that in
equity time is not considered to be of the es sence of the contracts; L. R. 3 Ch. 67. Or dinarily time is not of the essence of the contract, but it may be made so by express stipulation of the parties; see Brown v. Trust Co., 128 U. S. 403, 9 Sup. Ct. 127, 32 L. Ed. 468; or it may be so by implication, because of the nature of the property involv ed; Waterman v. Banks, 144 U. S. 391, 12 Sup. Ct. 646, 36. L. Ed. 479; or because of the avowed object of the seller or purchaser; Cheney v. Libby, 134 U. S. 68, 10 Sup. Ct. 498, 33 L. Ed. 818; Waterman v. Banks, 144 U. S. 394, 12 Sup. Ct. 646, 36 L. Ed. 479; or from the nature of the contract itself; or by one party giving the other notice that per formance must be made within a certain rea sonable time fixed in the notice; Kirby v. Harrison, 2 Ohib St. 326, 59 Am. Dec. 677; Bullock v. Adams' Ex'rs, 20 N. J. Eq. 367; time is always of the essence of unilateral contracts; Maughlin v. Perry, 35 Md. 352; Smith v. Gillett, 50 Ill. 298. Completion of a contract within a reasonable time is suffi cient, if no time is stipulated; Minneapolis Gas Light Co. v. Mfg. Co., 122 U. S. 300, 7 Sup. Ct. 1187, 30 L. Ed. 1190.
Time is of the essence of the contract where land is to be paid for in monthly in stallments and after three months default the contract is to be void and the money paid is to be forfeited to the vendor ; Ax ford v. Thomas, 160 Pa. 8, 28 Atl. 443; and so where the contract shows an intention of the parties to limit it to a certain period; Hull C. & C. Co. v. Coke Co., 113 Fed. 260, 51 C. C. A. 213; Scarlett v. Stein, 40 Md. 512.
In determining whether stipulations as to the time of performance of a contract of sale are conditions precedent, the court will seek to discover the real intention of the parties in deciding whether time is of the essence of the contract; Benj. Sales § 593. If a thing sold is of greater or less value according to the lapse of time, stipulations with regard to it must be literally complied with bo,h at law and in equity ; Gale v. Archer, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 320; Goldsmith v. Guild, 10 Allen (Mass.) 239.