Clason v. Church
New York Supreme Court
There were eighteen different suits on one policy of in- . surance. In July term last, the plaintiff having refused to enter into the consolidation rule, the court granted imparlances in all the causes but one, and did the same, in October term: and Boyd, for the defendant, now moved for further ' imparlances.
1Opinion of the Court
*Per Curiam.
The court adopt the English con- [*30] solidation rule, and will not permit the plaintiffs to prescribe any other.(a)
Rule granted.
S. C. Colem, 62. In New York the common law power to consolidate actions between the same parties for causes of action which may be joined is confirmed by statute ; 2 R. S. 383, § 36. See also 2 Chit. Archb. 830. Graham’s Frac. 2d edit. 502 ; but aliter as to actions upon different policies though on the same risk. Camman v. N. Y. Ins. Co. 1 Caines’ R. 114.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Viele v. Germania InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Burnham v. DallingNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1863
- Knight Bros. v. Ogden Bros.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1877