Curtis v. Baldwin
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit upon joint and several promissory notes, signed by the Union Stove Company, principal, and the four defendants, with three other persons, as sureties. The writs in the two actions were made out at the same time, by the same attorney, the notes declared on being due and in the hands of said attorney for collection.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon joint and several promissory notes, signed by the Union Stove Company, principal, and the four defendants, with three other persons, as sureties. The writs in the two actions were made out at the same time, by the same attorney, the notes declared on being due and in the hands of said attorney for collection. The notes were given at one and the same time to the plaintiffs, in payment of a debt due from the Union Stove Company, and were signed by the same parties. The declaration in each case alleges the note declared on to be signed by the company and the said seven sureties,…
1Opinion of the CourtSargent, J.
It has long been the practice in the court of king’s bench in England for the court to consolidate actions, where two or more have been brought between the same parties at the same time, where the causes of action might be compressed in the same declaration. Cecil v. Briggs, 2 T. R. 639; Oldershaw v. Tregwell, 3 C. & P. 58; Boothe v. Payne, 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 348; Anderson v. Twogood, 1 Ad. & E. (N. S.) 245; Doyle v. Douglas, 4 B. & Ald. 544.
The same practice prevailed in New-York to some extent as early as 1812 and before. Thompson v. Shepard, 9 Johns. 262. And in 1818 a statute was passed in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Thompson v. ShepherdNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Dunning v. Bank of AuburnNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- People ex rel. Livingston v. Albany Common PleasNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Simonds v.CenterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Brewster v. StewartNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.