310 7£D£|BAti : BP>0BTEB. �which the daim îs filed, must be excluded. Therefore, the claim here, filed April 5, 1875, was in time, �This construction of the mechanics' lien law is in accord ■with ail the later authorities upon the vexed question of the «omputation of time. Cromelien v. Brink, 29 Pa. St. 524. Thus it was decided in Green's Appeal, 6 W. & S. 327, that under the act of the twenty-sixth of March, 1827, the five years from the day of the entry of a judgment within which it must be revived by scire fadas, are exclusive of the day on which the judgment was entered. And in Menges v. Frich, 73 Pa. St. 137, it was held that where a debt was due Octo- ber 6, 1862, suit brought October 6, 1868, was in time to «scape the bar of the statute of limitations. "Time is to be computed excluding the day on which the act is done from which the count is made," is the rule as expressed in Brisben V. Wilson, 60 Pa. St. 452. �As respects credits^ it seems to me the commissioner has made ail proper allowances, and correctly reports the balance due on this lien. �And now, October 18, 1880, the exceptions to the commis- sioner's report are overruled, and said report, and the distri- bution therein made, confirmed absolutelv. ���VoYLES, Assignee, v. Paeker. �(Circuit Court, Z>. Indiana. , 1880.), �1. Bankbtiptct — Judgment — Lien — Ajjjiinistbator's Bokd — Illinois STATtTTBS. — Under the statutes of Illinois an assignaient in bankruptcy does not defeat the lien of a judgment recovered against the bankrupt upon an administrator'shond, where the suit upon the bond was insti- tuted prior to the flling of the petition iij bankruptcy, although the judgment was not obtained until after such petition had been flled. In re Jodyn, 2 Biss., ezplaiued. �, for plaintiflF. �, for defendant. ���Dkdmmond, g. J. The facts which gîve rise to the contro- Tersy in this case may be very briefly stated. Thomas J. Eod- ����
