The Ostby Barton Co. v. Goldman

43 A. 101, 21 R.I. 280, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 44
CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island
DecidedApril 28, 1899
StatusPublished

This text of 43 A. 101 (The Ostby Barton Co. v. Goldman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Ostby Barton Co. v. Goldman, 43 A. 101, 21 R.I. 280, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 44 (R.I. 1899).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) The defendant pleads the pendency of an action against him in Massachusetts for the same cause upon which this action is based. The mere pendency of a suit in one State cannot be pleaded in abatement or in bar of a second action in another State between the same parties for the same cause of action. Black. Judg. § 865 and cases cited; Stanton v. Embry, 93 U. S. 548; Allen v. Watt, 69 Ill. 655 ; *281 Cole v. Flitcraft, 47 Md. 312; Paine v. Schenectady Co., 11 R. I. 411.

Cooke & Angelí, for plaintiff. Page <& Page, for defendant.

Plaintiff’s demurrer to plea of Us penclens sustained.

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

Related

STANTON v. Embrey, Administrator
93 U.S. 548 (Supreme Court, 1877)
Allen v. Watt
69 Ill. 655 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1873)
Cole ex rel. Fie v. William H. Flitcraft & Co.
47 Md. 312 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 A. 101, 21 R.I. 280, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-ostby-barton-co-v-goldman-ri-1899.