defend; nor does the stat. of 23 H. 8. exempt them from paying costs; therefore they cannot petition to defend in forma pauperis. Barnes, 328. CONSOLIDATING OF ACTIONS. contra. (a) IF there be two or more actions brought upon the How to consame policy of assurance against the underwriters, or two solidate acor more ejectments on the demise of the same lessor of the tions. plaintiff for the same premises, and they proceed separate- 2 Barnard, ly, the defendants may apply to the court by way of motion K. B. 103. to consolidate such actions; if in term time, it is a rule to shew cause, if in vacation, by way of summons, before a judge; and upon their undertaking to be bound, and concluded, in all the actions, by the fate of the verdict in the action brought against the first defendant, and to bring no writ of error, the court will stay all the proceedings in the last actions until further order; but all the rules must be paid for separately, as also the sum-monses and orders; and if the verdict turns in favor of plaintiff, to the satisfaction of the judge who tried the cause, the plaintiff may proceed to tax his costs on that verdict, and get the defendant's attorney to attend the master, who will tax the costs in the other actions, which if complied with (as is usual,) and not paid with the debt, move the court, upon an affidavit of the facts, "for leave "to enter up the judgment, and take out execution thereon, "and that the master may tax the costs in all the causes, "and for the costs of the application;" one stamp for the affidavit is sufficient, which the court will order; after the costs are taxed, they are to be paid within a limited time; if not, sign the judgments upon a 10s. stamp, and (a) It seems that Lord Mansfield introduced the consolidating rule, to avoid the expense and delay arising from the trial of a multiplicity of actions upon the same question. And if the plaintiff will not consent, court have the power of granting imparlances in all the actions but one, till the plaintiff has an opportunity of proceeding to trial in that action. Parke's Insur. Introd. And he adds, if the plaintiff consents to the rule, court will make defendant subunit to admit the policy, produce and give copies of books and papers, and undertake not to file a bill in equity, or bring a writ of error. Ibid. Verdict in this case must be such a one as court thinks ought to stand. If two actions be brought which might have been joined. consolidated. CONSOLIDATING OF ACTIONS. take out execution thereon; you pay for separate rules, and counsel's fees are not fixed. The verdict in this case must be such a one as the court thinks ought to stand, as a final determination of the matter. Hodgson v. Richardson, 3 Burr. 1477. Therefore if a new trial be granted in one action, the court will make a rule for the other defendants, to pay the money pursuant to their undertaking. Ibid. See title Payment of Money into Court, the case of Burstall v. Horner. 7 Term Rep. 372. If two actions are brought by the same plaintiff, for causes which may be joined, and the defendant be holden to bail in both, the court will compel the plaintiff to consolidate them, and pay the costs. Cecil v. Burgess, 2 Term Rep. 639. See 2 Str. 1149. 1178. contra. Thirty-seven Rule why the proceedings in all the causes, (37 in ejectments on number in ejectment for houses in Sackville-street) should same demise not be staid, and abide the event of a special verdict, in Doe ex demise Pulteney v. Cavan-Lord Kenyon said, it was a scandalous proceeding, they all depended precisely. on the same title, and ought all to be tried by the same record. Rule abs. Doe ex demise Pulteney at al. v. Freeman, Sellon, 229. But where were succes But where three actions were successively brought by three actions the same plaintiff, against the same defendant, upon three notes of hand, which became due at different times, sively brought the court refused to consolidate them. Messenden v. due at differ- O'Hara, M. 25 Geo. 3. Tidd, 367. And the court will ent times, re- not consolidate actions against different defendants in on three notes, fused. When rule may be applied for. trespass, though the affidavit be that the trespass, if any, was committed by all jointly: the court said, they never went so far as the case of different defendants, but only where the declarations are between the same parties. 1 Str. 420. Bayley v. Raby et al. Cas. Temp. Hardw. 137. (a) This rule may be applied for on the same day the plea is delivered or filed; for in that rule will be contained, a stay of the proceedings, which will prevent all the issues being made up and delivered. But you must plead before the application. (a) Also see 1 Smith Rep. 423. where three actions were brought for bribery, court refused the rule. In an action on policy of insurance against several, As to the where the parties had not entered into this rule, the attor- briefs in actions against ney for plaintiff made out a full brief in one cause, several on but only a short statement in the rest, and the master on policy. taxation, having allowed for full briefs in all the causes, the court made a rule for him to review the taxation. Martineau v. Barnes, Hil. 23 Geo. 3. Tidd, 534. ABATEMENT BY DEATH, &c. THE general rule to be observed in this case is, that When no alwhere the death of any party happens, and yet the plea teration made by death. is in the same condition as if such party were living, there such death makes no alteration or abatement of the writ. 10 Mod. 251. Gil. C. P. 242. Vide title REVIVING JUDGMENTS, and stat. 8 & 9 W. 3. c. 11. s. 7. respecting the death of one of the plaintiffs or defendants. die between By the stat. 17 Car. 2. c. 8. it is enacted, that the death If either party of either party between verdict and judgment shall not verdict and be alleged for error, so as judgment be entered within judgment. two terms after such verdict. (b) If either party die before the assizes, it is out of the If party die statute; but if after the assizes, though before trial, it is before assizes. no error; for the assizes is but one day in law. Salk. 8. pl. 21. 2 Lord Raym. 1415. 7 Term Rep. 32. If after verdict and before the day in bank, the plain- Ifplaintiff dies tiff dies, and the defendant signs judgment the second after verdict, term after the verdict, this is within the statute, and the and before day same as if he had entered judgment on the roll. Sid. 385. But a sci. fa. must issue before execution. 1 Wils. 302. Earl v. Brown. in bank. In ejectment, defendant died between the first day of Ejectment. the assizes and verdict: the court held the judgment well entered. Robertson v. Moor, 12 Mod. 241. 1 Sid. 131. An ejectment, against baron and feme, after verdict for Ejectment against baron the plaintiff, baron dies between the day of nisi prius and and feme, the day in bank; adjudged that the writ shall stand baron dies be good against the feme, because it is in the nature of a tween the day trespass, and the feme is charged for her own act; and of nisi prius and day in bank, it is good against the feme. (b) All the sittings are considered in law as only one day, so that of course all verdicts given refer to the first day. James v. Miniconi, 7 Term Rep. 32. If feme takes husband after the action survives against her; so if the wife had died, the baron should have judgment entered against him. Cro. Jac. 356. Cro. Car. 509. Roll. Kep. 14 Moore, 469. If a feme sole plaintiff after verdict, and before the day verdict, a sci. in bank, takes husband, she shall have judgment. Cro. Car. 232. but a sci. fa. must be sued out before execution. fa. must be not abate. A feme sole cannot by marriage If pending an argument on a special verdict, and the court takes time to consider thereon, the plaintiff dies, the judgment will be ordered to be entered up as of the term in which judgment ought to have been signed; 1 Burr, 226.; the like may be done if the defendant dies. Ibid. 147. 4 Burr. 2277. 1 East, 409. A feme sole cannot abate her own writ by marriage, for this would be taking advantage of her own act. abate her writ. 2 Roll. Rep. 53. If she is sued and takes hus- inferior court. If a feme sole is sued, and after takes husband, it is no abatement; for the plaintiff would be in a fine condition if, after they have arrested a woman, she shall be allowed to overthrow the proceedings by a subsequent marriage. Ld. Raym. 1525. 2 Str. 811. King & ux v. Jones. Marriage afBut if an action be brought in an inferior court against ter suit in an a feme sole, and pending the suit, she marries, and afterwards removes the cause, and the plaintiff declares against her as a feme sole, she may plead coverture at the time of the habeas corpus, because the proceedings here are de novo, and the court takes no notice of what was precedent to the habeas corpus; but it is said, the course in those cases is to move the matter to the court upon the return of the habeas corpus, and the court will grant a procedendo; for though a habeas corpus be a writ of right, yet where it is to abate a rightful suit, the court may refuse it. 1 Salk. 8. pl. 10. Sid. 40. Cro. Car. 104. If there are two suits pending for the same cause of action, the se The law abhors multiplicity of actions: and therefore whenever it appears upon record, that the plaintiff has sued out two writs against the defendant for the same thing, the second writ shall abate; but then it must plainly appear to be for the same thing. Mod. 418, 539. cond suit shall 5 Co. 61. abate. administrators, if In actions against executors or the application be made in a reasonable time the court will give the plaintiff leave to enter up judgment as of a preceding term, nunc pro tunc. 6 T. Rep. 6. But it is discretionary in the court, and it has been refused after a considerable lapse of time. 1 Str. 639. see 6 T. R. 11. 1 T. R. 637. 6 Mod. 59. Where it shall not operate to the prejudice of defendant by making plaintiff undertake not to disturb intermediate payments, or impeach judgments obtained in the interval. SUGGESTION AFTER THE DEATH, &c. By the stat. 8 & 9 W. 3. c. 11. s. 6. it is enacted, that If one plaintiff if there be two or more plaintiffs or defendants, and one dies, action or more of them should die; if the cause of such action may proceed; so if one of two should survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs, or defendants. against the surviving defendant or defendants, the writ or action shall not thereby be abated; but such death being suggested on record, the action shall proceed against such defendant or defendants surviving. In such case if the death happen before declaration, it should be suggested in the declaration; if it happen after plea, and before issue joined, it should be suggested in making up the issue; but otherwise, it need not be suggested till the plea roll is made up. London (ss) A. B. complains of C. D. being, &c. in Suggestion on a plea of trespass on the case, for that whereas the said the declaraC. D. on the 1st day of November in the year of our Lord death of one tion of the 1812, to wit, at London, &c. was indebted to the said of the plainA. B. and one C. H. his partner, (which said C. H. the tiffs, after writ said A. B. suggests to the court here, according to the sued out. form of the statute in such case made and provided, since the issuing of the writ of latitat against the said C. D. at the suit of them the said A. B. and C. H. to wit, on the 28th day of November in the year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, in, &c. died, and the said A. B. there survived him, which the said C. D. doth not deny, but admits the same to be true,) in 201. of lawful money, &c. for divers goods, wares, and merchandizes, by the said A. B. and C. H. in his lifetime before that time sold, &c. day of in the Go to the end of the issue; the same day is given to Suggestion of the parties aforesaid at the same place; then say, before the death of one of the which day, to wit, on the plaintiffs afyear aforesaid, at London aforesaid, in, &c. the said A. B. ter issue joinsuggests to the court here, according to the form of the ed. statute in such case made and provided, that the said C. H. there died, and the said A. B. survived him, which the said G. H. doth not deny: and the said G. H. by his attorney came; but the said sheriff did not send the said writ, nor did he do any thing thereon; therefore, as before, it is commanded to the said sheriff, that he cause |