Case ID: binn_2/html/0145-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per. Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Smith against Diehl.
    1809. Philadelphia, Friday, December 15.
    
      CERTIORARI to a Justice of the Peace.
    
      Hemphill for the defendant
    on this day moved for a pri- . , ,. , . r i c ority on the argument list, under rule So of the bupreme Court, April 15, 1781. J
    ®-ule 55 of tlle Supreme Court, i5th April, 1781, does not give a priority to a certiorari to a jusb^foie* the arrangement jt s¿ems that ^® ^ule is °k‘
    
      Ingersoll
    
    objected to the priority upon three grounds. 1. Because the rule was obsolete. 2. Because it gave a priority merely in the arrangement of the list of arguments, which implied that the party must state his claim, to the prothonotary before the list was arranged. 3, Because even if the claim could be made after the arrangement of the list, it should have been made, according to The Commonwealth v. Pascalis, 
       on the first day of the term.
    
      
       1 Binn. 37.
    
   Per. Curiam.

If the court had been called upon to order the clerk how to make out his list, while this rule was in use, they would have directed the priority; but there never has been an application for the benefit of the rule during the árgument period. The application is therefore too late, even if the rule is at present in force; but in fact it has not been adopted in practice for many years.

Motion denied-.