In State v. Gehlbach, 205 La. 340, 17 So. 2d 349, 352 (La. 1943), a Louisiana Supreme Court case, the court discussed the definition of "within." The phrase "within one year" deals with the element of time. Time is not a static thing. . . . If a person is required to perform an act within a given year, and he does it before the end of that period, even on the last fractional second thereof no matter how small, his efforts are timely. If, on the other hand, the last instant of the year is allowed to pass without performance but he acts on the very next infinitesimal fraction of a second, he performs untimely; he is then in a new period, not within but without the given one, and more than the year has elapsed. The act must be done either within the year or without the year; there is and can be no intermediate point. The following illustration, although not dealing with the element of time, is appropriate. If a physician states to a patient that the cost of an operation will be "within $ 200," and, following a performing of the services, a statement is rendered for exactly $ 200, that charge is "within $ 200." Or if he says that the cost will be "not more than $ 200," a charge of $ 200 is still within the $ 200. At the exact point of $ 200 the cost is neither less than nor more than $ 200; yet it is within that amount.