Brewster v. Stewart
New York Supreme Court
Motion for consolidation. Two suits were commenced by Brewster against Stewart by capias, served on the same day, returnable at the last August term.
Read the full summary
Motion for consolidation. Two suits were commenced by Brewster against Stewart by capias, served on the same day, returnable at the last August term. Two declarations were delivered, each containing one count on a justice’s ment, each judgment being for the sum of $54,67, eachrendered in the month of July, 1829, and a transcript of each was filed on the same day in the clerk’s office of the county of Oswego; it was not, however, shewn that the judgments were rendered on the same day, nor was there an affidavit of merits. The defendant before pleading obtained an order to stay proceedings, and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage, Ch. J.
The practice of the king’s bench seems to extend the consolidation rule to all actions between the same parties, brought at the same time, where the causes of action might be comprised in the same declaration. This court has not gone the same length, and even as late as 9 Johns. R. 262, in a case decided in 1812, amotion to consolidate was refused where three suits were brought by the same endorsee against the same maker on three prom, issory notes, all due at the commencement of the suits, and they brought at the same time, solely because the notes varied in dates,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Mutual Life Insurance v. HillmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Dunning v. Bank of AuburnNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Miles v. DanforthIllinois Supreme Court · 1865
- Hiscox v. New Yorker Staats ZeitungNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
- Curtis v. BaldwinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1861