Wilder v. . Greene

Walker, J., after stating tbe case: Tbe real question presented by this appeal is whether tbe court bad tbe power to consolidate the actions. It is one that is often required in order that different suits, alike in their facts and tbe issues involved, inay be brought together in one'trial, where it can be done without serious prejudice to tbe parties, as it will save time and unnecessary expense, and may prevent confusion and conflict in verdicts, if tbe actions were tried separately. Sumner v. Staton, 151 N. C., 203. The power has frequently been exercised witb the strong approval of tbe courts. Glenn v. Bank, 70 N. C., 192; Morrison v. Baker, 81 N. C., 76, and Hartman v. Spiers, 87 N. C., 28, where Smith, G. J., states the cases in which, under the general practice, consolidation may be ordered, though tbe enumeration by him does not embrace all such cases. It has been intimated that tbe exercise of the power is discretionary, Glenn v. Bank, supra; Sumner v. Staton, supra; 4 Enc. of Pl. and Pr., 688; but we do not decide bow this is. It is said in 4 Enc. of Pl. and Pr. at p. 689: “A court of equity has power to consolidate actions, witb or without tbe consent of tbe complainant. It is a power over tbe conduct of suitors, resting upon tbe clearest principles and absolutely essential to prevent scandalous abuses and to protect defendants against gross oppression.” See, also, Castle v. Castle, 69 W. Va., 400; Cooper v. Bowen, 140 Ga., 45. Whether tbe exercise of tbe power be discretionary and unreviewable, or, though it clearly exists, is subject to revision by appeal, there was no abuse of it here, and tbe result will, therefore, be tbe same in either case. Tbe judge acted wisely in consolidating the two actions, as they are substantially alike and tbe plaintiffs in them seek tbe same relief. There is nothing in tbe other question raised, as there are no facts to be found in tbe record which support tbe contention of appellant. *96 The signature to the complaint of appellee was evidently an inadvertence, and it was stated on the argument before us and not denied that dissolution of the law firm had taken place before any motion in the cause had been made. But apart from all this, nothing has been done that violates the rights of either party, and the order was a matter of course, as it granted the relief which both parties were demanding. No error.