The Ostby Barton Co. v. Goldman

43 A. 101, 21 R.I. 280, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 44
Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided April 28, 1899·Published

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

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

43 A. 101 (The Ostby Barton Co. v. Goldman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)