Hyperlawhypertext legal database Camman v. New-York Insurance 1 Cai. 114

← Cases

Camman v. New-York Insurance

1 Cai. 114 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Contents

Majority

p. 160
*Camman against The New-York Insurance Company.

Headnote

The rule for consolidating applies only to several actions on one policy, and does not extend to several policies on one risk, though the question be the same on all, because the contracts are several.
The plaintiff had, for himself and several other persona with whom he was variously interested, effected eleven policies on distinct parts of the cargo of the same vessel. The -name of the plaintiff was in each insurance, but associated with different parties, according as he was connected. The point in dispute was the same in all. .
Hoffman
moved to consolidate the actions, or to stay proceedings in ten of the suits till the eleventh was determined ; the defendants being willing to pay on the residue, if that should be determined against them. The object of his endeavor was, as he said, to save the enormous costs which would otherwise accrue.
L. Ogden.
The contracts are several; and though a number of actions on one policy will be consolidated, that is because the contract is one, and therefore the very reason of the practice in such a case is sufficient to overrule the present application.
An application was made by myself to this court, for leave to consolidate five actions on five promissory notes to the same plaintiff, and refused, because of the diversity of the contracts.[1]

The contracts being separate and independent it is not a case for consolidation, and not to be dis

p. 161
tingu.kh.3J from that of the notes. There never was an instance of consolidating different policies.[1]

Motion denied.

Radcliff and Livingston, Justices, absent.

(a) (a) On promissory notes the court refused to consolidate, though the suits were between the same parties. Philips & Ludlow v. Roget, Caines’ Prac. 134, from MS. Kent, Ch. J. So where the notes fell due on different days, the K. B. denied the application. Mussenden v. O'Hara, 1 Tidd, (edit. 1803,) S56. The same principle governs in ejectments. When there are several defendants, who have several interests, the court will not consolidate. Medlicot v. Bruester, 2 Keb. 524. Aliter, where the suits are for the same premises on the same demises. Grimstone v. Burgers and others, Barnes, 176. Inactions on policies of assurance, where the rule for consolidating does apply, the court will grant imparlances in all but one, till the plaintiff’s consent to enter into the consolidation rule, which is the same as that in the English courts. Church ads. Clason & Stanley, Cole. Cas. 62. Where after consolidating a cause in one inferior court, the plaintiff discontinued in that court, and brought, for the same cause, an action in another court, proceedings were stayed till after trial of the principal cause in the consolidation rule. Parkin v. Scott, 1 Taun. 565.