Miller v. Baillard
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
The plaintiff, in the first action, made defendant in the second and therein 'counterclaiming on the cause set out in the first action, is not entitled to have the two actions consolidated under sections 817 and 818 of the Code of .Civil • Procedure. ■ The purpose of said sections is to prevent a plaintiff from harassing a defendant . by prosecuting different suits for causes of action which could be joined..
Read the full summary
The plaintiff, in the first action, made defendant in the second and therein 'counterclaiming on the cause set out in the first action, is not entitled to have the two actions consolidated under sections 817 and 818 of the Code of .Civil • Procedure. ■ The purpose of said sections is to prevent a plaintiff from harassing a defendant . by prosecuting different suits for causes of action which could be joined.. Appeal by the defendant, Edward V. Baillard, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Suffolk on…
1Opinion of the Court
Miller, J.:. The action in the Supreme Court was brought to recover the sum of $200 alleged to have been paid to the defendant to construct a certain machine for the plaintiff, it being averred that the defendant had neglected and refused to deliver the. machine. The defendant for answer admitted the receipt, of the $200, and pleaded as a defense that he had a lien on said machine for services rendered and materials furnished of the value of $380.70, of which the sum of $13.20 had been paid. Subsequent to the commencement of the Supreme' Court action the defendant in that action sued the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Brown v. . GallaudetNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Mayor v. . CoffinNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- McGrath v. MaxwellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
3Cited by12 opinions
- Elias v. Artistic Paper Box Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1967
- Ferron v. Intermountain Transportation Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1943
- Krohe v. GoldmanCity of New York Municipal Court · 1938
- In re the Arbitration between Big W. Construction Corp. & HorowitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
- T. Blumenthal & Co. v. Theo. Tiedemann & Sons, Inc.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1922
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.