Commonwealth v. Chambre

But The Court (stopping the counsel for Mrs. Chambré) said, that [125] they were unanimously of opinion, that the legislature intended calendar months;(a) that the same expression, in other acts of the general assembly, had uniformly received the same construction (Brudenell v. Vaux, 2 Dall. 302); that there was nothing illegal or improper in the conduct of Mrs. Chamhré, on the occasion; and that, therefore, the negroes must be remanded into her service. Lewis, Ingersoll and Franklin, for the negroes. M. Levy, for Mrs. Chambre. Footnotes [(a)] Months are to be considered calendar, in all contracts or transactions between man and man, Shapley v. Garey, 6 S. & R. 539;1 but where a sentence of imprisonment was recorded, for the space of one month, the prisoner was discharged at the expiration of a lunar month. Respublica v. Oswald, 1 Dall. 329, in note. [1] Thomas v. Shoemaker, 6 W. & S. 179. The word “ month,” in a statute, means a calendaj month. Moore v. Houston, 3 S. & R. 169. [1] It is now well settled, that mesne profits are recoverable in the ejectment suit, up to the time of the verdict. Duncan v. McGill, 4 Whart. 230. But the plaintiff must give previous notice of such claim. Cook v. Nicholas, 2 W. & S. 27; Bayard v. Inglis, 5 Id. 465.