
    PHILIP HANO & CO. v. GRETSCH.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    April 13, 1912.)
    Action (§ 57)—Consolidation.
    Two actions between the same parties, upon the same written instrument, with substantially the same issues, one in the City Court, and the other in the Municipal Court of New York City, should on motion be consolidated.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Action, Cent. Dig. §§ 632-675; Dec. Dig. § 57.*]
    Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
    Action by Philip Hano & Co. against Max J. Gretsch. Prom an order denying defendant’s motion to consolidate, he appeals. Reversed, and motion granted.
    Argued April term, 1912, before SEABURY, GUY, and GERARD, JJ.
    Simeon Goodelman, of New York City, for appellant.
    Louis E. Felix, of New York City, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff instituted one action against the defendant in the City Court of the City of-New York, and subsequently instituted another action against the defendant in the Municipal Court of the City of New York. The causes of action alleged in these two actions are between the same parties, are brought upon the same written instrument, and the issues are substantially the same. In view of the circumstances disclosed above, we are of the opinion that the motion should have been granted, and the two actions consolidated.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.  