Case ID: ad_269/html/0759-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sam Hoffman, Respondent, v. Ida Hoffman, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Rose Ehrlich, Respondent, v. David Ehrlich, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)
   In these divorce actions, order directing that they be tried together, under the provisions of section 96-a of the Civil Practice Act, reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. In our opinion, it cannot be said that these actions grew “ out of the same set of facts,” as provided in section 96-a of the Civil Practice Act, nor that they can be tried together “ without prejudice to a substantial right ” of defendants. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.