Oneida County Bk. v. . Bonney
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Skolnick v. Martin (Ill. App. Ct. 1964)
- Skolnick v. Martin (Ill. 1964)
- Ackert v. Ausman (New York Supreme Court 1961)
- General Dehydrator Co. v. F. W. Bussing Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1917)
- Sweetser v. Fox (Utah 1913)
- Sargent v. Sargent Granite Co. (New York Court of Common Pleas 1894)
- In re Hopper (New York Court of Common Pleas 1894)
- Landy v. Lesavoy (New York Supreme Court 1956)
- Ippisch v. Moricz-Smith (New York Supreme Court 1955)
- Fire Ass'n v. General Handkerchief Corp. (N.Y. 1952)
- Roosevelt Field, Inc. v. Town of North Hempstead (New York Supreme Court 1949)
- Doherty v. Moreschi (New York Supreme Court 1946)
- Morrison v. Morrison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1931)
- Barnes v. Andrews (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1924)
- De Simone v. Transportes Maritimos Do Estado (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1922)
- General Investment Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1922)
- Continental Securities Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. (New York Supreme Court 1922)
- Southern Railway Co. v. Rowe (Ga. Ct. App. 1907)
- International & Great Northern Railroad v. Barton (Tex. App. 1900)
- Wilson v. Milliken (Ky. Ct. App. 1898)
- Gamble v. City of San Diego (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California 1897)
- Litchfield v. City of Brooklyn (New York City Court 1895)
- Douglass v. Phenix Insurance (N.Y. 1893)
- Sargent v. Sargent Granite Co. (New York Court of Common Pleas 1893)
- Douglas v. Phenix Insurance (N.Y. 1893)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The question upon this record, stated most favorably to the appellant, is whether the pendency of an action upon contract in the United States Circuit Court is *175 good ground for setting aside the service of a summons issued in a court of this State to enforce the same cause of action. As to it the courts below have differed. We agree with the General Term. At common law the pendency of another suit for the same cause could, at most, only be pleaded in abatement; but where the former action is in a court of the United States, or a sister State, it is no stay or bar to a suit in the courts of this State. A recovery in one might be pleaded to the further continuance of the other*, but until that was obtained each might proceed to judgment and execution, when a satisfaction of either would require a discharge of both (Walsh & Gallagher v. Durkin, 12 Johns. 99; Mitchell v. Bunch, 2 Paige, 606, 620), and the rule is the same since the Code. (Burrows v. Miller, 5 How. Pr. 51; Cook v. Litchfield, 5 Sandf. 330.)
That the first action was commenced in a State court by service upon one of several joint contractors, and removed by him into the United States court, and the second action afterward commenced by the service of a summons upon a different defendant cannot relieve that defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to all the remedies provided by law for the collection of its debt, and need not be satisfied until it has had such a judgment as will bind the defendants individually as well as jointly. It might, perhaps, proceed in the same suit against the other defendants (U. S. Rev. Stat., § 639, 2d subd.), in the State court, or, after judgment against all in such form as would bind the joint property, take proceedings to charge the defendants not personally summoned. It was not bound to do either, but might, as in this instance, commence a new action. (Lane v. Salter, 51 N. Y. 1; Morey v. Tracey, 92 id. 581.)
We think the order appealed from should be affirmed.'
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.