Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

90 N.Y. 312

Mayor v. . Coffin

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 27, 1882

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1882-10-27

The subject of one action was lands situate in the city and county of Hew York, of the other lands situate in Kings county. Two of the defendants in the former action were not parties to and had no interest in the subject of the latter action. The court had no power against the objection of the parties in interest to change the place of trial of a local action which is brought for the partition of real property to a county other than where the land is situated.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-10-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1967

9 state decisions

40188218901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 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.

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

¶3 All concur, except Rapallo, J., absent.

¶4 Orders reversed.

/90/ny/312 · .json · Public domain