Case Name: Henry R. Sire, Plaintiff, against George Kneuper, Defendant
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-11-27
Citations: 15 Daly (N.Y.) 40
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry R. Sire, Plaintiff, against George Kneuper, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Daly's Common Pleas Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 40–41

Head Matter:
Henry R. Sire, Plaintiff, against George Kneuper, Defendant.
[Special Teem.]
(Decided November 27th, 1888.)
This court has power to remove an action pending in a district court of the City of New York, for the purpose of consolidating it with an action pending in this court ; as the provision.of the Code of Civil Procedure, giving the Supreme Court such power to remove and consolidate (§ 818), is by section 3347 extended to all courts of record, and the power of this court, in a case of which it has jurisdiction, is coextensive with that of the Supreme Court (§§ 267, 3343, subd. 1).
Motion to remove to this court an action pending in a district court in the City of New York and to consolidate it with an action pending in this court.
An action brought by plaintiff against defendant in a district court of the City of New York, for rent of certain premises for the month of October, 1888, was removed by defendant to this court, after issue joined, upon giving bond, as provided by statute. Thereafter plaintiff brought another action against defendant in the same district court for rent of the same premises for the month of November, 1888. Defendant moved to have this action removed to this court and consolidated with the action previously removed on giving bond.
J. C. Julius Langbein for the motion.
Walton C. Dupignac and Albert I. Sire, opposed.

Opinion:
Bookstaver, J.
Section 818 of the Code in terms applied to the Supreme Court alone, but section 3347 extends the provision to ail courts of record (Soloman v. Belden, 12 Abb. N. Cas. 58 ; McKay v. Reed, Id. note ). The same result would seem to follow from section 3343, subdivision 1, which declares this court one of the superior courts of cities, and from section 267, which declares the jurisdiction of such courts to be co-extensive with that of the supreme court. The actions and defenses in both cases being the same, they should be consolidated, and the motion is therefore granted.