Case Name: Henry Pike, Jr., as Receiver, etc., Resp't, v. Mechanics and Traders' Bank, Impleaded, etc., App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-10-12
Citations: 63 N.Y. St. Rep. 117
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry Pike, Jr., as Receiver, etc., Resp’t, v. Mechanics and Traders’ Bank, Impleaded, etc., App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 63
Pages: 117–118

Head Matter:
Henry Pike, Jr., as Receiver, etc., Resp’t, v. Mechanics and Traders’ Bank, Impleaded, etc., App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed, October 12, 1894.)
Injunction—Prosecution of actions.
Where two actions are pending in the supreme court between the same parties involving the same question, the court has power, if justice demands it, to restrain the trial of the later, until the disposition of the former action.
Appeal from an order, made in the first action, denying a motion, made by one of the defendants therein, for an injunction restraining the prosecution of the second action.
Action by Henry Pike, Jr., as receiver of the property, assets and effects which were of the copartnership of Haas & Pohalski, against Benoit Wasserman, Herman Reiners, Catharine M. Reiners, Henry Bischoff, Moses Lindheim, Solomon L. Simpson, Mechanics & Traders’ Bank, Francisco Garcia, Vincente Guerra, Abraham Rosenstein, Helen Wollman, Leopold Schmitt, Robert J. Dean, Edward M. Dean, Alvin J. Donally, John J. Gorman, as sheriff of the city and county of New York, and Charles C. Allen, as late receiver of the copartnership of Haas & Pohalski. The complaint alleged the appointment of plaintiff and of defend ant Charles C. -Allen, as receivers in a certain action instituted in the supreme court, city and county of New York, by Henry W. Haas against Gh David Pohalski, for the dissolution of the firm of Haas & Pohalski, the commencement of various attachments, replevin and execution proceedings by defendants, and prays that plaintiff’s title as such receiver be cleared from the clouds of said attachments, replevins and executions, and that, pending the determination of the action, defendants be enjoined and restrained from prosecuting any of their actions or proceedings, and for such other and further relief, either interlocutory or final, as may be necessary, equitable, just and proper in the premises, claiming, ■among other things, that said proceedings are void, having been levied on assets in the possession of the court. Afterwards an action was brought in the supreme court in the county of Kings, by Benoit Wasserman, Herman Eeiners, Catharine M. Eeiners, and Henry .Bischoff, composing the firm of H. & H. Eeiners; Moses Lindheim, "Victoria Simpson and Alfred L Simpson; Francisco Garcia and Vincente Gruerra, composing the firm of F. G-arcia & Co.; Abraham Eosenstein and Helen Wollman, composing the firm of Eosenstein & Wollman,—against Henry Pike, Jr., as receiver of Haas & Pohalski, Charles C. Allen, as receiver of Haas &;Pahalski, Henry W. Haas and Gf. David Pahalski, individually and as composing the late firm of Haas & Pahalski, to ■ procure an adjudication that the appointment of the receivers was fraudulent as to said Wasserman and others (plaintiffs in the second action), and that their judgments, attachments and executions b.e adjudged superior to the title of said receivers.
Charles Strauss, for app’lt; Oratz Nathan, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Both being actions in the supreme court, there seems to be no doubt but that this court has the power to restrain the trial of one until the final disposition of the other, if justice demands it. We think, therefore, that the order appealed from should be reversed, and order granted restraining the trial of the action subsequently brought until the final determination of the action first instituted ; ten dollars costs and disbursements of the appeal to the appellant.