Mayor v. . Coffin

90 N.Y. 312, 11 Abb. N. Cas. 367, 1882 N.Y. LEXIS 383
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 27, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 90 N.Y. 312 (Mayor v. . Coffin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mayor v. . Coffin, 90 N.Y. 312, 11 Abb. N. Cas. 367, 1882 N.Y. LEXIS 383 (N.Y. 1882).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order of consolidation must be reversed because the Special Term had no power to make it. The authority to consolidate actions is given by section 817 of the Code, and permits it only where both actions are pending between the same plaintiff and the same defendants for causes of action which might have been joined. That is not the case here. The actions were for partition. The subject of one action was land in the city and county of Hew York, and of the other land in the county of Kings; and two of the defend *314 ants, Lane and wife, in the New York action, were not parties to the Kings county action, and had no interest in the subject of the latter action. By the consolidation they are exposed to the possible costs and expenses, and the delays of a litigation in another county in which they have no interest. In such a case the consolidation does not consolidate. The two actions remain two, and cannot become one. All that is effected is an improper change of the place of trial from New York to Kings, and a concurrent trial of two actions, having neither the same parties, nor the same subject of action. The Code does not authorize such a proceeding.

The order of the General Term and of the Special Term should be reversed, with costs.

All concur, except Rapallo, J., absent.

Orders reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Elias v. Artistic Paper Box Co.
29 A.D.2d 118 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)
In re the Arbitration between Adam Consolidated Industries, Inc. & Miller Bros. Hat Co.
6 A.D.2d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
People ex rel. Collins v. Ahearn
146 A.D. 135 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)
de Lancey v. Heylman
69 Misc. 267 (New York Supreme Court, 1910)
Martin v. Prentice
133 A.D. 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)
Miller v. Baillard
124 A.D. 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Roosevelt v. Schile
95 A.D. 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
American Grocery Co. v. Flint
5 A.D. 263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Smith v. Smith
22 Colo. 480 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1896)
Wooster v. Case
12 N.Y.S. 769 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 N.Y. 312, 11 Abb. N. Cas. 367, 1882 N.Y. LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayor-v-coffin-ny-1882.