Case Name: William P. Jenks and Others, Copartners Doing Business as Jenks, Gwynne & Company, Appellants, v. Clinton Burns and Catherine Mary Burns, His Wife, Respondents. (Action No. 1.); Clinton Burns, Respondent, Appellant, v. William P. Jenks and Others, Copartners Doing Business as Jenks, Gwynne & Company, Appellants, Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1930-12
Citations: 231 A.D. 864
Docket Number: 
Parties: William P. Jenks and Others, Copartners Doing Business as Jenks, Gwynne & Company, Appellants, v. Clinton Burns and Catherine Mary Burns, His Wife, Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Clinton Burns, Respondent, Appellant, v. William P. Jenks and Others, Copartners Doing Business as Jenks, Gwynne & Company, Appellants, Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 231
Pages: 864–865

Head Matter:
William P. Jenks and Others, Copartners Doing Business as Jenks, Gwynne & Company, Appellants, v. Clinton Burns and Catherine Mary Burns, His Wife, Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Clinton Burns, Respondent, Appellant, v. William P. Jenks and Others, Copartners Doing Business as Jenks, Gwynne & Company, Appellants, Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

Opinion:
Order granting con solidation of actions and denying motion to refer the issues in the consolidated actions affirmed, without costs. We do not hold that plaintiff in action No. 2 may not have a trial by jury of the issue therein involved even though his complaint by the consolidation order is now presented in the form of a counterclaim. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Tompkins, JJ., concur.