Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/675

 WOOLBIDGE V. h'kENNA. 661 �legislature, necessarily indieate a limitation of the power of the court, or a condition precedent to its exercise. Fanning v. Com. 120 Mass. 388. Where a statute required a brigade court-martial to be constituted on or before the first day of June, and it was not consti- tuted till July, it was held valid, the provision being only directory. People V. Allen, 6 Wend. 486. A referee was required to report to the first term after the expiration of six weeks but did not till more than a year, and the statute was held directory for the purpose of expediting the proceedings and preventing delay. The law in these respects should be observed, but if a slip occurs it does not render the whole proceeding a nullity, but the officer or party delinqu&nt should be made to respond according to the nature and consequence of his fault. Be Empire City Bank, 18 N. Y. 200, 220. Here we have, as before remarked, a special remedy and security to compel the delinquent to so respond. If it be clear that no penalty was in- tended to be imposed, then, as a matter of course, it is but carrying out the will of the legislature, to decree the statute tp be .simply directory. Corbett v. Bradley, 7 Nev. 106. It was in that casa a statute requiring certain claims to be preseuted within 30 days, and was clearly an act of limitations, and was held mandatory. A sheriff was required to file his bond "within ,20 days," and it was held that it was directory, and he did not forfeit his office by failure. People V. Holley, 12 Wend. 481. A requirement that an election re- turn should be filed on the day subsequent to closing the. poli was only directory. Ex parte Ileath, 3 Hill, (N. Y.) 42. A statute re- quired a justice of the peaee, before continuing a cause, to enter on the files the reasons for the absence of the signing justice, and it was held directory, and not mandatory or jurisdictional. Holland v. Osgood, 8 yt. 276. A statute required that security for costs should be given before process issued, and it was held that the giving of the security was not essential to the jurisdiction, beeause the statute did not say that the giving of security was a condition in compliance with which only the process might issue. Nor did it pro- vide that the process should be void, or be quashed, or set aside, if security should not be given. The court having general jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties may proceed if the security be given nunc pro tune. Parks v. Goodwin, 1 Doug. (Mieh.) 56. Stat- utes giving jurisdiction are always liberally construed in furtherance of justice, and such an interpretation as will work a forfeiture of the right is not favored. Peareon v. Lovejoy, 53 Barb. 407. Where the directions of the statute are given with a view to the proper, or duly ��� �