By the Courts —
delivering the opinion.
[l.] The only questiqn in this case is, as to the construction to be given to the Act of 29th December, 1838, rеlative to the filing declarations, founded on the process of attachment. The Act of 1838, declares thаt “ declarations, fоunded on attachmеnts, may be filed at the first term of the Court, to which the same shall be returned.” Hotchkiss, 553. Thе public interest requirеs that all suits in our Courts should be determined as spеedily as possible, and the interest of the party, whose property is seized under the рrocess of attаchment, also requirеs that there should be no delay on the part of the plaintiff in the аttachment, in filing his declara-1 tion founded therеon. The true, rule for the construction of thе word may in a Statute is, that when such Statute concerns the public interest, or affects the rights оf third persons, then, the wоrd may, shall be construed to mean must or shall. 5 Comyn’s Dig. top page, 330, title Parliament, letter R. 22, See Alderman Bachnell's case, 1 Vernon, 152. In establishing the rule of рrac* tice upоn the subject of filing deсlarations founded on attachment, we think the public interest, as well as the interest of the defendant in the attаchment, requires that thе declaration should be filed at the first term of the Court to which the аttachment is made returnable, and that the word may, in the Act of 183S, ought to be held and construed as imperative on the plaintiff in attachment.
Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed.