Ratzer v. Ratzer
New York Supreme Court
Motion by defendant for leave to file a supplemental answer. This action was brought by John Ratzer, Sr., against John Ratzer, Jr., and others to compel the defendant, John Ratzer, Jr., to account for the proceeds and profits of certain contracts made by him with certain brewers, the other defendants, in the city of New York, for the purchase of brewer’s grains.
Read the full summary
Motion by defendant for leave to file a supplemental answer. This action was brought by John Ratzer, Sr., against John Ratzer, Jr., and others to compel the defendant, John Ratzer, Jr., to account for the proceeds and profits of certain contracts made by him with certain brewers, the other defendants, in the city of New York, for the purchase of brewer’s grains. The complaint was dated November 2, 1874, and the answer, December 21, 1874. The trial was had April 5 and 6, 1875, and the findings were that the father, the plaintiff, for a long time previous to the suit, was carrying on the grain…
1Opinion of the CourtLawrence, J.
Assuming that the learned counsel for the defendant is right in contending that the questions involved in this action and in the suit in the court *466of chancery of the State of New Jersey are the same, or substantially the same, I am of the opinion that the motion for leave to file a supplemental answer should be denied, for the reason that the action in this court was commenced first. The rule is that where there are two proceedings pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, the proceeding first commenced is a bar to the last,, or goes in abatement of it (Groshon v. Lyon,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Groshon v. LyonNew York Supreme Court · 1853
3Cited by4 opinions
- Purdy v. Manhattan Ry. Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
- Blake v. BarnesNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- Central Railroad v. N. J. West Line RailroadNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1880
- Jones v. GouldNew York Supreme Court · 1907