Majority
p. 17William H. Crossman et al., Resp’ts, v. The Universal Rubber Co., App’lt. (New York Superior Court, General Term, Filed December 14, 1891.)
Headnote
Bah—Action in foreign jurisdiction._ Plaintiff attached proper'yof defendant in New Jersey and brought action there to disaffirm the sale of g -ads to it, offering to surrender the notes received therefor, but nothing was recovered therein. Held, that the pendency of such action was not a bar to an action in this state on one of the notes.
Appeal from judgment entered on verdict directed by trial judge in favor of the plaintiffs, and from an order denying a motion made upon the judge’s minutes for a new trial.
.Estes, Barnard & Tiffany, for app’lt; Norwood & Coggeshall, for resp’ts.
While a double satisfaction is not allowed, concurrent cumulative remedies are not in all cases forbidden. The ground upon which courts proceed in abating a subsequent suit upon the ground of pendency of a former one between the same
p. 18
•parties and for the same cause is that the subsequent suit is unnecessary, and, therefore, vexatious. This is not the case here. The suits were in different jurisdictions, one being in the courts of New Jersey. The circumstances seem to have justified both. No .application seems to have been made either to stay the proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction or those pending here. The pleadings are the same as they were on the former trial of this case, which resulted in a direction for the defendant on the theory of election of remedies.
The court of appeals in reversing that judgment (see decision reported in 87 St. Rep., 230 ; Book XIII, Lawyers’ Reports, p. 91) settled the law of the case, and the trial judge, upon the second trial, acted in harmony with the views expressed by our .appellate tribunal when he directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. It follows that the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.
Freedman, Me Ad am and Gtldersleeve, JJ., concur.