Opinion of the court. of the property designated is, in the absence of language indicating a different intention on the part of the grantor, to be considered as passing by the conveyance.* Thus the devise of a mill and its appurtenances was held by Mr. Justice Story to pass to the devisee not merely the building but all the land under the mill and necessary for its use, and commonly used with it. So a conveyance "of a certain tenement, being one-half of a corn-mill situated," on a designated lot "with all the privileges and appurtenances" was held by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire to pass not only the mill, but the land on which it was situated, together with such portion of the water privilege as was essential to its use. And the exception of a factory from a mortgage deed was held by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts to extend to the land under the factory, and the water privilege appurtenant thereto.§ In the deed from the Governor and Auditor the property conveyed is designated as "all the right, title, interest, claim, and demand, which the State may hold or possess in the Northern Division of the Central Canal, &c., and all the rents which may have become, or shall become due after the sale of said property, and the water-power, and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, including its banks, margins, tow-paths, side-cuts, feeders, basins, right of way, dams, water-power, structures, and all the appurtenances thereunto belonging." This language is comprehensive enough to carry the several parcels of land described in the declaration. These parcels are described in almost identical language in the leases executed by the Board of Internal Improvement on behalf of the State. The law providing for leasing the surplus water, authorized at the same time the leasing of "such portions of ground belonging to the State as might be necessary to its use;" and the leases specify those particular * Sparks v. Hess, 15 California, 196. † Whitney v. Olney, 3 Mason, 280. Gilson v. Brockway, 8 New Hampshire, 465. See, also, to the same effect, Wise v. Wheeler, 6 Iredell, 196; and Blaine's Lessees v. Chambers, 1 Sergeant & Rawle, 169. Opinion of the court. parcels as being necessary to the beneficial use and enjoyment of the water. 2. The objection that the lessors of the plaintiff, as grantees of the reversionary interest of the State, cannot maintain ejectment for the premises upon breach of the covenants to pay rent contained in the leases of the State, rests upon the supposition that the leases are not under seal. It is conceded that at the common law the grantee of a reversion could not enter or bring ejectment for breach of the covenants of a lease; and that the statute of 32 Henry VIII, giving the right of entry and of action to such grantee, was confined to leases under seal. The statute speaks of conditions, covenants, and agreements, contained in indentures of leases, demises, and grants; language only applicable to sealed instruments. That statute was adopted in Indiana as early as 1818, but a law of the State passed in 1843 alters its rule, and extends its remedies to all leases. 3. The objection taken to the proceedings for the forfeiture of the leases is that the demand for the rent was not made on the proper day, nor by properly authorized agents. The demand was made on the first day of May, and also on the first day of June. The first demand was premature; the question is as to the demand on the latter day. The leases provided that the rents should be paid semi-annually on the first days of May and November; and that if any instalment should remain unpaid for one month from the time it should become due, all the rights and privileges secured to the lessees should cease and determine, and any authorized agent or lessee of the State should have power to enter and take possession of the premises. By the term "month" as here used is meant a calendar, and not a lunar month. The legislature of Indiana has attached this meaning to the term when it is used in the statutes of the State, but has not defined its meaning in contracts or deeds, and it is contended by the plaintiff in error that in the absence of any legislative provision on the subject, the term must be construed in these instruments to mean lunar and not calendar months. But this view cannot Opinion of the court. be sustained. The term is not technical, and when the parties have not themselves given to it a definition, it must be construed in its ordinary and general sense, and there can be no doubt that in this sense calendar months are always understood. The reasons upon which a different rule rests in England with reference to other than mercantile contracts, do not outweigh this consideration.* The rent becoming due on the first day of May, the one month from that time within which the payment was required to be made to prevent a forfeiture, expired on the first day of June following. In the computation of the time, the day upon which the rent became due was to be excluded. The general current of the modern authorities on the interpretation of contracts, and also of statutes, where time is to be computed from a particular day or a particular event, as when an act is to be performed within a specified period from or after a day named, is to exclude the day thus designated, and to include the last day of the specified period. "When the period allowed for doing an act," says Mr. Chief Justice Bronson, "is to be reckoned from the making of a contract, or the happening of any other event, the day on which the event happened may be regarded as an entirety, or a point of time; and so be excluded from the computation."† The parties who made the demand for rent were duly authorized by the lessors of the plaintiff. Authority in writing was not essential; verbal authority was sufficient for the purpose. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. * Gross Fowler, 21 California, 392; Strong v. Birchard, 5 Connecticut, 361; Brown v., Harris, 5 Grattan, 298. † Cornell v. Moulton, 3 Denio, 16; see also Bigelow v. Wilson, 1 PickerIng, 485. Statement of the case. CHITTENDEN ET AL. v. BREWSTER ET AL. 1 It is the duty of assignees, for the benefit of creditors, who have once accepted the trust, not only to appear, but so far as the nature of the transaction, and the facts and circumstances of the case will admit or warrant, to defend the suit. And if a Federal court is already seized of the question of the validity of the trust, they should set up such pending proceeding against any attempt by parties in a State court to bring a decision of the case within its cognizance. If, when the Federal court has acquired previous jurisdiction, they submit with a mere appearance, and without any opposition to the jurisdiction of the State court, and pass over to a receiver appointed by it the assets of the trust, they will be held personally liable for them all in the Federal court. ? A party not appealing from a decree cannot take advantage of an error committed against himself; as for example, that the appellant had omitted to prove certain formal facts averred in his bill, and which were prerequisite of his case. But where-assuming the fact averred, but not proved to be true-a decree given against a party in the face of such want of proof is reversed in his favor, it may be reversed with liberty given to the other side to require him to prove that same fact which the appellee, when seeking here to maintain the decree, was not allowed to object that the appellant had failed, below, to prove. THIS was an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit was a creditor's bill filed against a judgment debtor and his assignees, the defendants in the case, to set aside an assignment made by the debtor to hinder and delay creditors. The assignment was made on the 4th of November, 1857, to Brewster and Clark, two of the defendants, and purported to convey to them all the property, real and personal, of the debtor, in trust, to convert the same into money, either at public or private sale, and or private sale, and pay certain preferred creditors named. The judgment debtor made no defence. The assignees put in a joint answer, and after requiring the complainants to make proof of their judgments and executions as charged in their bill, set forth, among other grounds of defence, that, after the filing of the bill below, a bill in chancery had been filed against them in one of the State "ourts, in behalf of other creditors of the judgment debtor. Statement of the case. praying for the appointment of a receiver to take possession and charge of the property conveyed by the assignment, and that the trusts therein created be carried into effect; and that, upon the filing of the bill in the State court, and after hearing the motion for a receiver, the motion was granted; and that they had afterwards, in pursuance of the order of the State court, transferred and set over to the said receiver, one Mitchell, all the property, real and personal, that had come to their hands. To this answer a replication was filed, and the parties went to their proofs. There was no evidence that, on the applica tion in the State court for a receiver, which was made on the alleged ground of faithless execution of the trust, the assignees had made opposition. They had done nothing but acknowledge service on themselves of the notice of the intended motion for a receiver; employ a solicitor to enter an appearance for them, and to give their assent to the hearing of the motion at the February Term of the court, then at hand. The State court accordingly granted the prayer of the bill before it, and appointed a receiver, one Mitchell, in the case. But no fraud was proved nor specifically alleged on the part of the assignees in any part of the proceeding. The bill below was taken, as confessed, by Brewster, the debtor, and dismissed as to two other defendants; and the court, after hearing the case on the pleadings and proofs, declared the assignment fraudulent, and set it aside, and appointed a receiver, one Moulton, and directed the judgment debtor to assign and transfer in writing to him all his property, real and personal; and further, that Brewster and Clark, the assignees, should assign and transfer in writing to him all the property and effects of every description that came into their hands by the assignment of the 4th of November, 1857, except such property and effects so assigned to them, which have, since the service of process in this suit, been transferred to Mitchell, the receiver, under the proceedings had in the State court, and which was set forth in the answer filed by them. From this decree the complainants appealed to this court, the ground being essentially that the proceeding in |