From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eckenroth v. Egan

Supreme Court, New York Special Term
Jun 1, 1897
20 Misc. 508 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1897)

Opinion

June, 1897.

Wilson, Barker Wilson, for motion.

Henry Schmitt, opposed.


The provisions of section 18 of chapter 342 of the Laws of 1885 (Mechanic's Lien Law), are no broader than section 817 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both authorize the court to consolidate, in its discretion, two or more actions. It has frequently been held under section 817 that the motion to consolidate must be made before trial. Eleventh Ward Savings Bank v. Hay, 8 Daly, 328; affirmed without opinion by the Court of Appeals, 73 N.Y. 609. By the motion now before me, it is sought to consolidate an action that has been partly tried with one in which the issues have just been joined. I think the motion comes too late. The parties to an action have the right to participate in all of the trial, and that right is not preserved to them by a provision in the order of consolidation to the effect that the testimony already given and exceptions taken, stand subject to the right of both parties to recall and re-examine any of said witnesses who have testified.

Motion to consolidate denied, with $10 costs.

Motion denied, with $10 costs.


Summaries of

Eckenroth v. Egan

Supreme Court, New York Special Term
Jun 1, 1897
20 Misc. 508 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1897)
Case details for

Eckenroth v. Egan

Case Details

Full title:FRANCIS ECKENROTH et al., Plaintiffs, v . ELLEN EGAN et al., Defendants

Court:Supreme Court, New York Special Term

Date published: Jun 1, 1897

Citations

20 Misc. 508 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1897)
46 N.Y.S. 666

Citing Cases

Peck v. Peck

As authority for her position appellant has cited Shooters Island Shipyard Co. v. Standard Shipbuilding Corp.…