# Morgan v. Eckart

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
MORGAN verʃus ECKART et al.
O
Tilghman, in fupport of the rule, contended, that the Defendants were privileged from arreft, on account of the public nature of the bufinefs which brought them to Philadelphia ; and ftated, as the great principle upon which privilege and protection are founded, that the rights and intereft of Commonwealth muft, in many cafes, be preferred to thofe of individuals. Vin. tit. Priv. 84. pl. 1 He then claffed the cafes of privilege under two general pofitions:–1ʃt That where by law it is a man's duty to attend at a particular place, or Court, he fhall be fued there only ; and no one fhall be compelled to undertake any thing inconfiftent with fuch duty, or with his profeffion, in particular cafes. Vin tit. Priv. 509. pl. 1. Cro. Car. 585. Sir W. Jones. 462. Stra. 1107. 3 Leon. 149. Vin. tit. Priv. 513. pl. 8. Barn. Notes. 200. 378.– And, 2dly. That where a man is under a legal obligation to attend, or where he goes to demand juftice, he fhall not be arrefted at all. Vin. tit. Priv. 515. pl. 6. Com. 446. 1 Brownl. 15. 2 Black. Rep. 1113. 1. Atk. 54. Stra. 1094. Vin. tit. Priv. 512. pl. 18. ibid. 514. pl. 12. 13. ibid. 515. pl. 6.
In the prefent inftances, he urged, that it was incumbent upon the Sheriƒƒ to wait on the Executive Council, as the law required him to give fuch fecurity, as they fhould approve: And, with refpect to the Lieutenant of the county, he alledged, if the Court now doubted, they would be fatisfied upon enquiry, that he, likewife was in the profecution of his official duty on the above mentioned occafion.
He then adverted to the impolicy of increafing the jealoufy, that feemed to fubfift already too much, between the city and the remote parts of the State; but this, he predicted as an inevitable and ruinous confequence, if, whenever a countryman came hither upon public bufinefs, he was liable to be arrefted and detained. The city would foon be likened to the Lion's den, towards which innumerable tracts of feet might be traced, ʃed nulla veʃtigia retorʃum. ​
1788.
Sergeant and J.B. M‘Kean, for the Plaintiff, ftated, that the cafes of privilege in England, were limitted to an attendance upon Parliament, or upon Courts, as a party, juror, witnefs, or officer ; and that all the authorities which had been cited for the Defendants, were fully comprehended within thefe bounds. They admitted that reafonable privilege had, likewife, been allowed in Pennʃylvania; but denied that, in either country, the doctrine had been extended to the object of the prefent rule. For, they infifted, that the Sheriƒƒ's attendance upon the Executive Council, was voluntary, in order to folicit an appointment, which, notwithfanding his being on the return, the Council might, at pleafure, grant, or refufe. Neither was he bound to give fecurity ‘till he was appointed ; and, even then, it was no neceffary to be given in the city of Philadelphia.– With refpect to the Lieutenant of the county, nothing, they faid, could be more evident, than that his vifit to Philadelphia was on act of fupererogation, to perform what no required him to do, and what might as well have been performed through the agency of a Poft-rifer.
If, indeed, the attendance of the Sheriƒƒ, or of the Lieutenant of the county had been required by the Executive Council; or, if they had been brought before that Board by any legal procefs; they might then have claimed the advantage of the general rule of the privilege. But there can be no pretence in reafon, or law, to exempt from an arreft,either a man, who voluntarily comes to folicit an office ; or one, who undertakes a journey merely to oblige his neighbors by bringing them their commiffions.
At an adjourned fittings, held on the 6th of September, the president delivered the clear, and unanimous opinion of the court, that the Defendants were not protected from arrefts, for any caufe that had been fhewn. He obferved, that they had not been required by the Executive Council to attend them, but evidently came to Philadelphia on their own private bufinefs; and that it was the duty of the Court to be careful not to extend the doctrine of privilege to the injury of honeft creditors.
The rule difcharged.