Case ID: ri_21/html/0280-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Ostby & Barton Company vs. William J. Goldman.
    PROVIDENCE
    APRIL 28, 1899.
    Priosicnt : Matteson, C. J., Stiness and Tillingliast, 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.
   Per Curiam.

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.

Cooke & Angelí, for plaintiff.

Page <& Page, for defendant.

Plaintiff’s demurrer to plea of Us penclens sustained.