Opinion
April 28, 1899.
PRESENT: Matteson, C.J., Stiness and Tillinghast, JJ.
(1) Lis Pendens. The mere pendency of a suit in one State cannot be pleaded in abatement or bar of a second action in another State between the same parties for the same cause of action.
ASSUMPSIT ON BOOK ACCOUNT. Heard on demurrer of plaintiff to defendant's plea of lis pendens. Demurrer sustained.
Cooke Angell, for plaintiff.
Page Page, for defendant.
The defendant pleads the pendency of an action against him in Massachusetts for the same cause upon which this action is based. The mere pendency of a suit in one State cannot be pleaded in abatement or in bar of a second action in another State between the same parties for the same cause of action. Black. Judg. § 865 and cases cited; Stanton v. Embry, 93 U.S. 548; Allen v. Watt, 69 Ill. 655; Cole v. Flitcraft, 47 Md. 312; Paine v. Schenectady Co., 11 R.I. 411.
Plaintiff's demurrer to plea of lis pendens sustained.