
    
      Peter A. Camman v. The New-York Insurance Company.
    
    THE plaintiff had, for himself and several other persons with whom he was variously interested, effected eleven policies on distinct parts of the cargo of the same vessel. The name of the plaintiff was in each insurance, but associated with different parties, according as he was connected. The point in dispute was the same in all.
    
      Hoffman
    
    moved to consolidate the actions, or to stay proceedings, in ten of the suits till the eleventh was determined ; the defendants being willing to pay on the residue, if that should be determined against them. 'The object of his endeavour was, as he said, to save the enormous costs which would otherwise accrue.
    
      L. Ogden.
    
    The contracts are several; and though a number of actions on one policy will be consolidated, that is because the contract is one; and therefore, the very reason of the practice in such a case, is sufficient to overrule the present application.
    An application was made by myself to this court, for leave to consolidate five actions on five promisso;:’y notes to the same plaintiff, ancl refused, because of the diversity of the contracts.
    
    
      
       By the practice,of the English courts, if the defendant be held to bail in two actions which might be joined, the plaintiff will be obliged to consolidate and have to pay the costs of the application. Cecil v. Briggs, 2 D. & E. 639.
    
   Per Curiam.

The contracts being separate and independent, it is not a case for consolidation, and not to be distinguished from that of the notes. There never was an instance of consolidating different policies.  