Case Name: Church ads. Clason and Stanley
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1799-01
Citations: 1 Cole. Cas. 62
Docket Number: 
Parties: Church ads. Clason and Stanley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Coleman's Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 62–63

Head Matter:
Church ads. Clason and Stanley.
HERE were 18 feparate caufes on one policy. In July term laft, on the refufal of plaintiffs to enter into the confolidation rule, the Court granted imparlances in all the caufes but one, and the like in October term, and now Boyd for defendant makes application for further imparlances.
Riggs obje&ed. He produced art agreement which had been tendered by plaintiffs to the defendant, and was refufed. This lie contended would, if accepted, have anfwered the fame purpofe as an exaft compliance with the Rule, and ought to have been received; and that the defendants, after refuting that offer, were not entitled to take the effefit of the prefent application.

Opinion:
Per Cur.
The Englijh confolidation Rule is the one the Court mean to infill on, and they will not permit the plaintiffs $0 preferibe to them any other.
Let the defendant take the effect of his motion.
The plaintiffs then applied for a Rule to examine witneffes, de bene ejfe, in the one caufe which flood open for trial; but the Court refufed it, ob~ ferving, that they were entitled to no indulgence, till they had firfi acceded to the terms already required.