Opinion
Decided October 2, 1906.
Although the pendency of a prior suit in another state is not pleadable in abatement, the court may in its discretion direct that an action be continued to await the final disposition of litigation in a foreign jurisdiction between the same parties and involving the same subject-matter.
BILL IN EQUITY. This is the same case which was before the court in 73 N.H. 518, with the exception of some additional facts not necessary to be here stated, Transferred from the April term, 1906, of the superior court by Pike, J.
Cain Benton, for the plaintiff.
Burnham, Brown, Jones Warren, for the defendants.
George W. Estabrook, receiver, pro se.
The determination of this controversy depends upon the interpretation of a contract which is governed by the law Massachusetts. A prior suit involving the same subject-matter and between the same parties is now pending in the courts of Massachusetts. Under these circumstances it is not deemed advisable for this court to now pass upon the question here presented. Although the pendency of the Massachusetts suit is not pleadable in abatement of the present action (Yelverton v. Conant, 18 N.H. 123; Goodall v. Marshall, 11 N.H. 88; 1 Cyc. 36), nevertheless, its pendency being suggested, it is discretionary with this court to direct that the present action be continued to await the final disposition of the Massachusetts suit. Douglass v. Insurance Co., 138 N.Y. 209, 218; 1 Cyc. 36, 37.
Case continued.
All concurred.