Case Name: Christopher Hayes against Thomas Shields
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1797-05
Citations: 2 Yeates 222
Docket Number: 
Parties: Christopher Hayes against Thomas Shields.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 2
Pages: 222–222

Head Matter:
Christopher Hayes against Thomas Shields.
A suitor is privileged from being arrested or served with a summons, while attending. his cause eundo and redeundo : and the court will not nicely scan his time of return.
A Day had intervened after the delivery of the verdict in the cause preceding, when the lessor of the plaintiff was served with a summons, in aplea of trespass on the case, issued out of the Court of Common. Pleas of Westmoreland county.
Mr. Ross moved,
that the defendant should be discharged from the action, on the ground of privilege, which he claimed as one of the suitors of this court. He had been engaged since the trial, in settling the costs of the former suit.
Mr. Young for the plaintiff,
attempted to distinguish the service of a summons from an arrest by capias. In the latter, the defendant would be restrained of his liberty, and be compelled to find bail. Besides the defendant had lingered unreasonably in his journey.

Opinion:
Per cur.
It has frequently been resolved, that courts in cases of this nature, will not nicely scan the time of the return of parties, witnesses, &c. 2 Stra. 986, 987, 990, 1094. 1 Barnes. 278. 2 Bl. Sep. 1113. Gilb. Cas. C. R. 308. It is fair to presume, that the adjustment of the expenses of the action just tried, would detain him at least one day. His exemption from process is the privilege of the court. 2 Bl. Rep. 1193. Annal. 41. Dall. 357. The distinction between writs of summons and capais, is not solid, as it respects the present question, and was overruled in the case of the member of convention impleaded in Philadelphia. (Bolton v. Martin.) Dall. 296. The p.arty's attention to his own business in the suit depending, is distracted by other objects, and he is subjected to the inconvenience of attending an action at a considerable distance from his own place of abode, contrary to the wise indulgence of the law. Vide Hutt. 59. 2 Stra. 1094.
The defendant must therefore be discharged from this action.