Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-119 (2020)

Computation of time

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Where a certain number of days are required to intervene between two (2) acts, the day of one (1) only of the acts may be counted.

History. Civil Code, § 784; C. & M. Dig., § 9756; Pope's Dig., § 13281; A.S.A. 1947, § 27-130.

Case Notes

In General.

When a certain number of days are required to intervene between two acts, the day of one, only, of the acts is to be counted, but when a statute requires notice of at least a certain number of days before an act, this means so many full days, and the day of the notice and the act are both excluded from the computation. Jones v. State, 42 Ark. 93, 1883 Ark. LEXIS 58 (1883); Moore v. State, 52 Ark. 265, 12 S.W. 562 (1889).

July 1 notice to tenant whose tenancy expired December 31 was insufficient to constitute six months' notice. Gregory v. Walker, 239 Ark. 415, 389 S.W.2d 892 (1965).

Applicability.

This section does not apply to computation of time in rule of political party. Williamson v. Montgomery, 185 Ark. 1129, 51 S.W.2d 987 (1932).

Election Laws.

Where statute required certificate of nomination to be filed with election commissioners “not less than fifteen days before the election,” one day should be excluded in the computation. State v. Hunter, 134 Ark. 443, 204 S.W. 308 (1918).

First Day.

The general rule in calculating a limitations period is to exclude the first day from the computation. Hodge v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 297 Ark. 1, 759 S.W.2d 203 (1988).

The day on which a nonsuit is taken should be excluded from computation. Hodge v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 297 Ark. 1, 759 S.W.2d 203 (1988).

Limitation of Actions.

In computing time to ascertain whether action is barred by limitations, day on which right of action accrued must be excluded, and day of issuing summons included. Peay v. Pulaski County, 103 Ark. 601, 148 S.W. 491 (1912). But see Shinn v. Tucker, 33 Ark. 421 (1878).

The Supreme Court has followed the method of calculation in this section and in ARCP 6(a) in fixing a limitation period for the time for filing pleadings as well as for certain notices. Grubbs v. Credit Gen. Ins. Co., 327 Ark. 479, 939 S.W.2d 290 (1997).

Unlawful Detainer.

In determining the time for bringing action for unlawful detainer under § 18-60-303 requiring three days' notice to quit, the day of serving notice may be counted. Whitner v. Thompson, 188 Ark. 240, 65 S.W.2d 28 (1933).

Cited: Widmer v. J.I. Case Credit Corp., 239 Ark. 12, 386 S.W.2d 702 (1965); Globe Life Ins. Co. v. Humphries, 258 Ark. 118, 522 S.W.2d 669 (1975); Synergy Gas Corp. v. H.M. Orsburn & Son, 15 Ark. App. 128, 689 S.W.2d 594 (1985).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1988–2005 · leading case: Grubbs v. Credit Gen. Ins., 939 S.W.2d 290 (Ark. 1997).
Grubbs v. Credit Gen. Ins., 939 S.W.2d 290 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 3× “He relies in his calculations on Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-119 (1987), which reads: “Where a certain number of days are required to intervene between two (2) acts, the day of one (1) only of the acts may be counted.”
Union Nat'l Bank v. Nichols, 807 S.W.2d 36 (Ark. 1991). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-119 (1987) provides: Where a certain number of days are required to intervene between two (2) acts, the day of one (1) only of the acts may be counted.”
Phelan v. Discover Bank, 205 S.W.3d 145 (Ark. 2005). “In addition, § 16-55-119 (1987) provides: Where a certain number of days are required to intervene between two (2) acts, the day of one (1) only of the acts may be counted.”
Hodge v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 759 S.W.2d 203 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-119 (1987) provides: Where a certain number of days are required to intervene between two (2) acts, the day of one (1) only of the acts may be counted.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.