Case ID: scl_11/html/0637-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nott, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Planters and Mechanics’ Bank v. S. E. Cowing and E. Wagner. Same v. Same. Same v. Same. Same v. Same.
    Where a motion is made to consolidate two actions on two promissory notes, which joined, wonld exceed the jurisdiction of the City Court, after verdict the motion will be refused, 
    
    The Court, after verdict, will not strike out one of the defendants, on the ground that he is not within the jurisdiction of the Court.
    These suits came before the Constitutional Court, upon the following report of the Recorder of the Inferior City Court:
    “ They were brought upon two promissory notes, one of them for two hundred and eighty dollars, dated 10th April, 1819, payable fifty-five days after date, drawn by Wagner and Cowing, in favor of and endorsed by S. E. Cowing and E. Wagner. The other note was for four hundred and fifty dollars, dated 8th May, 1819, drawn and endorsed by the same parties, and payable fifty-five days after date.
    “ The writs were all returnable for the same return day, and the declarations were filed, and the pleadings made up on the same day.
    “Mr. King appeared for the defendants, and filed *pleas of the general issue. Understanding that there was no defence, the records were *• delivered to the jury, without any observations from the Court.
    “On the day after the verdicts had been obtained for the plaintiffs, a motion was made by the defendant’s attorney to have the actions consolidated. I considered the motion as one addressed to the discretion of the Court, which would always grant it where the causes of action might be joined, and where no good reason could be shown why they should not be ; but 1 nevertheless overruled the motion in these cases, because if it prevailed, the causes of action would exceed the amount within the jurisdiction of the Court, consequently, • the suits of the plaintiffs would be virtually discontinued, and they would be compelled to commence their action de novo.
    
    “ Notice was served upon me that a motion would be made before the Constitutional Court, to oblige the plaintiffs to consolidate their actions in the above cases, on the ground that the writs are to the same term, by the same plaintiffs against the same defendants, on two promissory notes made by the same drawers, and indorsed by the same endorsers; and in the cases against Wagner and Cowing, a further motion will be made to strike the name of Ward Cowing from the record, on the ground that he is not within the jurisdiction of this Court.
    “ War. Drayton.
    
      King, for the motion. Hunt, contra.'
    
      
       Planters’ and Mechanics’ Bank v. Moses Cohen.
      Charleston, January Term, 1820.
      
        Where several actions are brought on notes, all drawn by the defendant, all made to 
        
        the same person, and endorsed by Mm to the barde, they will, on motion, be consolidated; but where one of the notes has another endorser, the motion will be refused.,
      In this case, it appears that fire several actions were commenced on five several promissory notes, all drawn by the defendant, and all made payable to the same person, and endorsed by him to the bank.
      An application was made to the Circuit Court for an order for consolidation, which was refused, and now a motion is made to reverse that decision.
      The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice PIttser.
      
        A motion for an order to consolidate is an application to the discretion of the Court. When satisfied that no injury will result, the Court will always grant the motion. In these cases the plaintiffs are the same, the defendants the same, the drawers the same, the payees the same, the endorsers, with the exception of one, the same; the declarations are transcripts of each other, and so are the pleas. ■ No injury can result to either party from consolidating four of these cases, and much expense would be saved to the defendant. These cases, therefore, ought to have been consolidated.
      Some inconvenience is anticipated from blending in the same action notes with different endorsers. The fifth, therefore, ought to be kept separate.
      I am of opinion, therefore, that the decision of the Circuit Court ought to be reversed as to the four cases, with the same endorsers, and confirmed as to the fifth-case, where there was an additional endorser. As the plaintiff has been sanctioned in these proceedings so far by the Circuit Court, costs must be paid by the defendant up to the time of consolidation.
      *441] ^President and Directors oe the Bank oe the United States v. M. Cohen.
      The rule laid down in the preceding cases will govern in this. The two actions brought on the notes drawn by the defendant must be consolidated. The action brought on the note on which he is only endorser may be kept separate. Costs, which have already accrued, must be paid by the defendant. 
      
      Johnson, Richardson, and Nott, JJ., concurred.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Nott, J.

The Court are of opinion that the first motion in this case ought not to prevail, for the reasons stated in the report of the Recorder.

The second also came too late. The subject matter of the suit was within the jurisdiction of the Court; and if the party chose to submit to the jurisdiction,* he could not take the exception after trial. That motion also must be refused.

Gantt, Richardson, Johnson and Huger, JJ., concurred. 
      
       S. P. President and Directors of the U. S. Bank v. Abraham Isaacs, MS. See, also, Scott v. Brown, 1 Nott & McCord, 417. R.
      See 1 McC. 552.