Case Name: PIKE v. WASSERMAN et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-10-12
Citations: 30 N.Y.S. 952
Docket Number: 
Parties: PIKE v. WASSERMAN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 30
Pages: 952–954

Head Matter:
(81 Hun, 78.)
PIKE v. WASSERMAN et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
October 12, 1894.)
.Injunction—Against Prosecution of Actions.
Pending an action in the supreme court by a receiver to declare void ■ certain attachments against his insolvent, some of the defendants therein •sued the receiver in the supreme court in another county for an adjudication that their attachments were superior to the receiver’s title. Held, that a motion by one of the defendants in the first action to enjoin th'e ■ second action until the determination of the first should be granted.
.Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action by Henry Pike, Jr., as receiver of the property, assets, and effects which were of the copartnership of Haas & Pohalski, against Benoit Wasserman, Herman Beiners, Catharine M. Beiners, Henry Bischoff, Moses Lindheim, Solomon L. Simpson, Mechanics’ & Traders’ Bank, Francisco Garcia, Vincente Guerra, Abraham Rosenstein, Helen Wollman, Leopold Schmitt, Robert J. Dean, Edward M. Dean, Alvin J. Donally, John J. Gorman, as sheriff of the city and county of New York, and Charles C. Allen, as late receiver of the copartnership of Haas & Pohalski. The complaint alleged the appointment of plaintiff and of defendant Charles C. Allen as receivers in a certain action instituted in the supreme court, city and county of New York, by Henry W. Haas against G. David Pohalski, for the dissolution of the firm of Haas & Pohalski, the commencement of various attachments, replevin, and execution proceedings by defendants, and prays' that plaintiff’s title as such receiver be cleared from the clouds of said attachments, replevins, and executions, and that, pending the determination o-f the action, defendants be enjoined and restrained from prosecuting any of their actions or proceedings, and for such other and further relief, either interlocutory or final, as may be necessary, equitable, just, and proper in the premises; claiming, among other things, that said proceedings are void, having been levied on assets in the possession of the court. Afterwards an action was brought in the supreme court in the county of Kings by Benoit Wasserman, Herman Reiners, Catharine M. Reiners; and Henry Bischoff, composing the firm of H. & H. Reiners; Moses Lindheim, Victoria Simpson, and Alfred L. Simpson; Francisco Garcia and Vincente Guerra, composing the firm of F. Garcia & Co.; Abraham Rosenstein and Helen Wollman, composing the firm of Rosenstein & Wollman,— against Henry Pike, Jr., as receiver of Haas & Pohalski, Charles C. Alien, as receiver of Haas & Pohalski, Henry W. Haas and G. David Pohalski, individually and as composing the late firm of Haas & Pohalski, to procure an adjudication that the appointment of the receivers was fraudulent as to said Wasserman and others (plaintiffs in the second action), and that their judgments, attachments, and executions be adjudged superior to the title of said receivers. From an order made in the first action denying a motion made by the Mechanics’ & Traders’ Bank, one of the defendants therein, for an injunction restraining the prosecution of the second action, said bank appeals. Reversed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and PARKER, JJ.
Charles Strauss, for appellant.
Gratz Nathan, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Both being actions in the supreme court, there seems to be no doubt but that this court has the power to restrain the trial of one until the final disposition of the other, if justice demands it. We think, therefore, that the order appealed from should be reversed, and order granted restraining the trial of the action subsequently brought until the final determination of the action first instituted; $10 costs and disbursements of the appeal to the appellant