## Facts

- Joseph Simon’s estate, acting through its executors, sued a member of the Gratz family in a civil action arising from estate administration disputes.
- One executor, Levi Phillips, was an observant Jew whose Sabbath observance forbade appearing in court from Friday evening to Saturday evening.
- The trial court scheduled the case for trial on a Saturday.
- Phillips sought a continuance solely because trying the case that day conflicted with his religious obligations.
- The trial court denied the continuance request; Phillips refused to proceed, and a nonsuit was entered for failure to try the case.
- The executors appealed, arguing the denial violated protections for religious liberty under Pennsylvania’s constitution and (in argument) federal constitutional principles.

## Issues

1. Whether a litigant’s religious objections to appearing in court on the Sabbath entitle the litigant, as a matter of right, to a continuance of a civil trial set for that day.
2. Whether denying such a continuance is reversible error when the resulting refusal to proceed leads to a nonsuit.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held that religious scruples did not create a legal right to a continuance that would delay the court’s term.
- The court concluded the trial court did not err in denying the continuance, and the nonsuit remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional protection of religious exercise does not require courts to grant exemptions, as a matter of right, from neutral and generally applicable procedural rules such as trial scheduling.
- Courts may extend discretionary accommodation for religious objections when compatible with the orderly administration of justice, but such accommodation is not compelled when it would materially delay proceedings.
- Policy choices to create broader religious accommodations in court operations are for the legislature rather than the judiciary applying existing procedural rules.
- Civic obligations to comply with lawful judicial process may outweigh an individual litigant’s request to alter court administration based on personal religious practice.

## Conclusion

The court treated the request to avoid a Saturday trial as a demand for an exemption from ordinary procedural rules and held that religious liberty did not confer a right to delay judicial proceedings; absent legislative authorization, courts could decline a continuance sought solely on Sabbath observance grounds.


Simon’s Ex’rs v. Gratz, 2 Pen. & W. 412 (Pa. 1831)