Mayor v. Mayor

Headnote

Practice — actions for partition of land lying in different counties — power of the court to consolidate them, though the defendants are not the same.

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order made at Special Term, consolidating two actions brought for the partition of land situated in different counties, there being two defendants in one action who were not parties to the other action.

The court at General Term said: “The plaintiff commenced two actions for the partition of land. The parties were the same, except that two defendants in one action had no interest in the land in the last suit. The land was in two counties. The court made an order consolidating the two actions, from which the plain

tiff appeals. We think the consolidation was within wise discretion. The situation of the land in two counties presents no obstacle. Actions for partition and foreclosure, where the land lies in two counties, are not infrequent, and no difficulty has ever been experienced in the practice. That some of the defendants are interested in some parcels and not in all raises no impediment.

The actioti might well have been commenced by the plaintiff in the first instance against all the defendants, for the partition of all lands in which he had a common interest. He has an interest in all the land included in the consolidated action. There is, therefore, no objection for him, or which he can make available.” •

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.