Case Name: Dolbeer v. Stout
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-05-02
Citations: 19 N.Y.S. 820
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dolbeer v. Stout.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 19
Pages: 820–820

Head Matter:
Dolbeer v. Stout.
(Superior Court of New York City,
General Term.
May 2, 1892.)
Multiplicity of Actions—Election—Evidence.
S. brought an action against L. & Co. in the supreme court to recover $19,546.09-damages for improper storage of goods. L. & Co. thereafter assigned their claim for storage—84,811.46—to plaintiff, who sued S. thereon in the superior court of New York city. Held, that proceedings must be stayed in the second action, and plaintiff’s motion to compel S., defendant therein, to elect denied, since S. could use-only a part of his demand in the superior court.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Frazier M. Dolbeer, assignee of F. C. Linde & Co., against John Stout, to recover warehouse charges for storing poultry. Defendant had already brought an action in the supreme court against Linde & Co. to recover for damages caused by improper storage. From an order staying proceedings until the close of the action in the supreme court, plaintiff appeals. For former reports, see 17 H. Y. Supp. 184, 186.
Affirmed.
The opinion of McAdam, J., at special term, was as follows: “The supreme court action was commenced first. It is to recover $19,546.09, and,, but for the voluntary assignment made by Linde & Co., the cross demand could have been litigated in the supreme court action. If that action is stayed, the defendant here, who is the plaintiff there, can use only a small portion of his demand, ($4,811.46,) and may have to renew his litigation as. to the balance. If the supreme court action is tried first, the entire $19,-546.09 will be litigated and disposed of. The law does not encourage double-trials and multiplicity of suits, and the court will stay one action and allow the other, in which the entire relief may be awarded, to proceed. People v. Northern R. Co., 53 Barb. 98; Jackson v. Schauber, 4 Cow. 78; Jackson v. Stiles, 5 Cow. 282; McFarlan v. Clark, 2 Sandf. 699; Avery v. Railroad Co.,. (Super. Buff.) 9 N. Y. Supp. 404; Third Ave. R. Co. v. Mayor, etc., 54 N. Y. 159; Railroad Co. v. Robinson, 15 N. Y. St. Rep. 237; Sorley v. Brewer,. 18 How. Pr. 509; Schuehle v. Reiman, 86 N. Y. 270; Cushman v. Leland, 93 N. Y. 652; Pusey v. Bradley, 46 How. Pr. 255. It follows that the defendant’s motion for a stay must be granted, and the plaintiff’s motion to-compel an election denied. Flo costs.
Argued before Sedgwick, C. J., and Freedman, J.
Edward S. Clinch, for appellant. Thomas J, Farrell and B. M. McMahon, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The order should be affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion, of the special term.