Hyperlawhypertext legal database M. F. O'Neill, Inc. v. Lockwhit Co. 143 N.Y.S. 729

← Cases

M. F. O'Neill, Inc. v. Lockwhit Co.

143 N.Y.S. 729 Court Argued October term, 1913, before SEABURY, GUY, and BIJUR, JJ. Decision date 1913-10-23 English

Delivered by SEABURY, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 729
(82 Misc. Rep. 383.)
M. F. O’NEILL, Inc., v. LOCKWHIT CO. et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
October 23, 1913.)

Headnote

1. Action (g 55*)—Consolidation of Actions.
Several causes of action by the same plaintiff against the same defendants should not be consolidated, where the aggregate amount exceeds the-amount for which the court has jurisdiction to enter judgment.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Action, Dec. Dig. § 55.*]
2. Courts (§ 483*)—City Court—Jurisdiction—Transfer of Causes.
Where several actions are brought in the New York City Court, which might be consolidated, as authorized by Code Civ. Proc. g 817, but for the fact that their aggregate amount exceeds the court’s jurisdiction, the defendant may have them removed to the Supreme Court, as authorized by section 319a, where they may be lawfully consolidated.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. gg 1288-1290, 1306;. Dec. Dig. g 483.[1] ]
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
Seven actions brought by M. F. O’Neill, Incorporated, against the Lockwhit Company and another, in the City Court of the City of New York, were consolidated by order of court, and the plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Argued October term, 1913, before SEABURY, GUY, and BIJUR, JJ.
Hugo S. Mack, of New York City (William Kaufman, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Paul M. Abrahams, of New York City (George Trosk, of New York City, of counsel), for respondents.

[1, 2] Under the authority of Gillin v. Canary, 19 Misc. Rep. 594 , 44 N. Y. Supp. 313 , the practice of consolidating sev

p. 730
eral actions, the aggregate of which is in excess of the amount for which the City Court is authorized to enter judgment, is not to be adopted. The amount demanded in the actions consolidated in the order appealed from is $6,043. It follows that the order should be reversed. The defendant may then move to have the several actions' now pending in the City Court removed to the Supreme Court, where they may be lawfully consolidated and tried as one action.' Code Civ. Proc. §§ 319a, 817.

Order reversed, with disbursements to appellant, and motion denied. All concur.