Case Name: The Commonwealth against Sprenger and others
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1812-12-26
Citations: 5 Binn. 353
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Commonwealth against Sprenger and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Binney)
Volume: 5
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
The Commonwealth against Sprenger and others.
Philadelphia, Saturday, December 26.
When leave is granted information in the nature of quo warranto, the defendants must be summoned and if they must be brought by distringas or attacgment. An appearance upon the previous rule to shew cause, does not put them in information and therefore upon information relators are not entitled to a rule to plead.
ON a former day, Dallas and Ingersoll on behalf of O'Ellers and others as relators, obtained-a rule to shew cause why an information in the nature of a quo warranto should not filed against the defendants, to enquire by what authority they claimed to exercise the office of Lay Trustees of the Corporation of the German Religious city of Roman Catholics of the Holy Trinity Church &c. Upon the return of that rule, the defendants appeared hy counsel, and shewed cause; and the names of the same sel were marked upon the docket opposite to the names of the defendants.
The Court being of opinion that sufficient cause had not been shewn, made the rule absolute on the 24th instant; and on this day, the information being filed, they were asked for a rule upon the defendants to plead in’six hours, unless they would consent at all events to try by, the,next general j ury in January, and then the rule to plead might be returnable on any previous day. '
Binney and Hopkinson,
who had been counsel for the defendants upon the rule to shew cause, declined .consenting to try, and denied the authority of the Court to grant the rule, as the defendánts were not in court.
Dallas and Ingersoll contra,
contended that they were already in court by appearance upon the rule to shew cause; and suggested that unless the rule to plead was granted, the office, which was annual, would expire before judgment could be obtained in the information. The British statute 9th Ann. c. 20, not being adopted in this state, it was essential to the administration of justice, that the Court should lend their aid to the relators in the manner proposed. :
The counsel who argued the rule for the defendants, denied that they had ever appeared to this information, or that they had ever performed any duty as attorneys in the case, for until the information was filed, there could be no appearance by attorney to it. The former proceeding was simply an application for leave to institute the suit, the first step in which was the information. They said it was essential to issue a venire or subpcena; and if the defendants would not then appear, to bring them in by distringas or attachment; and for this they referred the Court to 2 Kyd on Corp. 404. 438, 439., 1 Sid. 86., 3 Bac. Abr. 646, Informations, D.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
There certainly are inconveniences arising from delay in a case of .this kind; but we must not permit ourselves to overthrow well established principles of law, to facilitate a particular suit. The defendants are not in court in this suit. The rule to shew cause was intended to obtain leave to institute the action. It is now commenced by the information. The relators must proceed by venire to the next term.
Motion denied.