Thompson v. Shepherd
New York Supreme Court
THESE were three separate actions, on several promissory notes, brought by the endorsee against the maker. The notes dated on different days, for different sums, and payable at different times, to the same person, who endorsed them to the plaintiff. The notes were all due when the suits were commenced; and the writs were all issued at the same time, and served at the same time, on the defendant. .
1Per curiam
The motion for a rule that these causes be con» solidated, must be denied. The notes are of different dates, for different sums, and payable at different times; and, for any thing that appears, different defences may be set up in the several suits, compel a consolidation, under such circumstances, would be going farther than is the usual practice of this court or the K. B. in England; (1 Caines' Rep. 114. Imp. K. R. Prac. 668. 1 Tidd, 556.) though the case of Cecil v. Briggs (2 Term 639.) would' seem to extend the consolidation rule to all actions between the same parties, and brought at the…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Mutual Life Insurance v. HillmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Fisher v. Mayor of CharlestonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1881
- Miles v. DanforthIllinois Supreme Court · 1865
- Hiscox v. New Yorker Staats ZeitungNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
- Harris v. SweetlandMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.