¶1Both being actions in the supreme court, there seems to be no doubt but that this court has the power to restrain the trial of one until the final disposition of the other, if justice demands it. We think, therefore, that the order appealed from should be reversed, and order granted restraining the trial of the action *954subsequently brought until the final determination of the action first instituted; $10 costs and disbursements of the appeal to the appellant
30 N.Y.S. 952
Pike v. Wasserman
Decided October 12, 1894
New York Supreme Court · decided 1894-10-12
.Appeal from special term, New York county. Action by Henry Pike, Jr., as receiver of the property, assets, and effects which were of the copartnership of Haas & Pohalski, against Benoit Wasserman, Herman Beiners, Catharine M. Beiners, Henry Bischoff, Moses Lindheim, Solomon L. Simpson, Mechanics’ & Traders’ Bank, Francisco Garcia, Vincente Guerra, Abraham Rosenstein, Helen Wollman, Leopold Schmitt, Robert J. Dean, Edward M. Dean, Alvin J. Donally, John J. Gorman, as sheriff…
Decided 1894-10-12