Berthold v. Wallach

The notice of motion was made returnable at chambers upon the 2d day of September, 1895, which was a legal holiday, being the first Monday of September, known as “ Labor Day.” Laws 1892, chap. 677, § 24. With regard to the transaction of business “ in public offices ” such a day is assimilated in nature to Sunday (Id. chap. 681, § 41); but while the courts cannot sit for the purpose of hearing motions upon Sunday (Code Civ. Proc. § 6), and a notice returnable upon that day is void, (Insurance Co. v. Hicks, 7 Abb. Prac. 204 ), yet it has been held that statutes similar to that above cited, as to “ public offices,” do not have bearing upon the courts. People ex rel. Vil. of Fulton v. Supervisors of Oswego, 50 Hun, 105 ; 19 St. Rep. 24 ; People v. Kearney, 47 Hun, 129 ; 13 St. Rep; 246; reversed upon another point, 110 N. Y. 188 ; 17 St. Rep. 165 . While it is the custom of the court to adjourn upon the days enumerated in the act of 1892 as holidays (chap. 677, § 24), yet the legal effect of a public holiday is a matter resting entirely upon the statute; and I am constrained to hold that the first Monday of September is not a dies non with regard to the return of process, and that, in the absence of a judge at chambers, a motion, such as that before me, stands over, as of course, until the next day. Mathis v. Vail, 10 How. Prac. 458.

Motion granted.