Case Name: Worley and Welsh against Glentworth; The Same v. The Same
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1828-11
Citations: 10 N.J.L. 286
Docket Number: 
Parties: Worley and Welsh against Glentworth. The Same v. The Same.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 286–287

Head Matter:
Worley and Welsh against Glentworth. The Same v. The Same.
The Court will not consolidate two actions brought against the same person, by the same plaintiffs, upon promissory notes drawn at different dates and payable at different times, where it does not appear that the defence is the same in each.
These were separate actions, on two several promissory notes brought by the plaintiffs, as endorsees, against the defendant as endorser. The notes were dated on different days, for different sums, and payable at different times to the defendant, who endorsed them to the plaintiffs. The writs were returnable to the same term, though issued and served at different times; and the first writ was issued before the second note became due.
Wm. Halsted, for the defendant,
moved to consolidate these actions, and cited 4 Halst. Rep. 335; 2 Arch. Frac. 180 ; Barn. Notes, 341.
Harrison, contra,
cited Forrester, 30; 9 John. Rep. 262, Thompson v. Shepherd.

Opinion:
The Chief Justice
delivered the opinion of the court.
We think we ought not to order the consolidation applied for. We find no principle or precedent to support it. The case read by the plaintiffs' counsel from 9 John. Rep. 262, though of no binding authority here, yet is entitled to weight. In that case the consolidation was refused under stronger circumstances.
The Legislature direct us to consolidate unnecessary actions. Can we say these actions are unnecessary ? The defendant has not shown that the defence is the same in each. Indeed he does not shew that ho has any defence at all.
Motion denied.