Case Name: Cordier agt. Cordier
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1863-12
Citations: 26 How. Pr. 187
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cordier agt. Cordier.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 187–192

Head Matter:
SUPREME COURT.
Cordier agt. Cordier.
In an action for a divorce for alleged adulteries of the defendant, during a certain period, the plaintiff is not required to proceed by supplemental complaint, but may commence a second action demanding the same relief for alleged adulteries with the same person, charged to have occurred after the commencement of the first action; and an answer of the defendant to the second action, of another action pending in the court for the same cause, is insufficient. (Sutherland, J., dissenting.)
Where the order of the court requires the defendant to stipulate to refer the action, as a consideration for leave to answer, it is erroneous. The defendant has a right to have any defence on the merits to such an action tried in the usual manner.
New York General Term,
December, 1863.
Sutherland, Leonard and Barnard, Justices.
Action for divorce by reason of alleged adulteries.
The defendant answered another action pending in this court for the same cause. On motion, this answer was stricken out, as sham and irrelevant, by order entered July 22, 1863. An appeal from this order was taken to the general term.
Lowery & Fransioli, for plaintiff.
Brainard & Rice, for defendant.

Opinion:
Leonard, Justice.
It is insisted that no former action was pending for the same cause when the present action was commenced, because the particular events charged were not in all respects identical. The only difference in fact is the time when the adulteries are charged to have been committed. In each case the adultery is alleged to have been committed with the same person, and the relief sought is a divorce.
At the hearing I was inclined to consider the answer sufficient; but, on further consideration, I have arrived at a different conclusion.
The case comes within that class in which the defendant is entitled, on motion, to an order staying the plaintiff's proceedings in one action, until the other (at the election of the plaintiff as to "the one in which he will proceed) shall be tried. (Clark agt. The Metropolitan Bank, 5 Sandf. 665.)
The adulteries charged in the latter action occurred after the commencement of the former. I.entertain no doubt that a new cause of action is stated in the second complaint. Although the plaintiff might have proceeded by supplemental complaint in the former action, that practice was not compulsory, and the plaintiff might, as he has done, resort to a new action.
The order appealed from is wrong, I think, in requiring the defendant to stipulate to refer the action as a consideration for leave to answer.
If the defendant has any defence upon the merits, she should not be deprived of a trial in the usual manner.
The order should be modified so as to permit the defendant to answer in ten days, and, in consideration of her sex, without costs.
Barnard, J., concurred.