Case ID: binn_1/html/0045-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Turnbull against The Commonwealth.
    Monday, September 5th.
    The court will not grant precedence to a cause in which the commonwealth is interested, unless it is asked by the commonwealth.
    INGERSOLL for the plaintiff, asked the court to give this cause a precedence upon the trial list agreeably to rule 52, 7th 7anuarz~' 1789, and rule 53, 8th April 1789, the commonwealth being a party and interested in the event of the suit.
    M. Levy who was concerned in other causes,
    objected to the preference, inasmuch as the rules embraced the case of commonwealth plaintiff, and not defendant. The preference he said was an °dious one; it had arisen from that very unjust partiality which in England is shewn to the business and rights of the crown, to the vast injury of the subject; and therefore should never be extended by a free construction,
    
      M'-Kean (attorney general)
    said he had never asked a preference in such a case; nor did lie now; but he did not object to it.
    
      Dallas for the plaintiff
    replied that the ground of the rule had been misconceived by Levy; it was founded, he said, in this simple and equitable principle, that the business of the community, in which all are concerned, should be transacted in preference to that of an individual which concerns but one; it was therefore as just a provision in a case like this, as in the case of commonwealth plaintiff.
   The Court

held the matter under consideration until the next morning, when they said that as the attorney general did not ask the preference they would not grant it.