## Facts

- Tanbro Fabrics Corp. bought textile piece goods from Beaunit Mills, Inc.; some goods were delivered to Tanbro and some remained with Amity Dyeing & Finishing Co. for processing.
- Tanbro refused to pay Beaunit, alleging the goods were defective due to “yarn slippage.”
- Beaunit sued Tanbro for the purchase price; Tanbro counterclaimed for breach of warranty based on defective manufacture.
- Tanbro sued Amity in replevin to recover the goods still in Amity’s possession; Amity counterclaimed for processing charges and asserted an artisan’s lien.
- Beaunit and Amity each contended the other was responsible for the alleged defect.
- Tanbro brought a third action against both Beaunit and Amity, alleging the defect was caused by Amity, Beaunit, or both, seeking a single determination of responsibility.
- Tanbro moved to consolidate the three actions; Beaunit and Amity sought dismissal of the third action based on the pending earlier actions.

## Issues

1. Whether claims against a seller and a processor involving the same allegedly defective goods arise out of the same “series of transactions or occurrences,” permitting joinder of both defendants in one action.
2. Whether the three related actions should be consolidated for trial to resolve common factual questions and avoid inconsistent outcomes.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division modified the order below.
- It denied Beaunit’s motion to dismiss Tanbro’s third-action complaint.
- It granted Tanbro’s motion to consolidate the three actions for trial.
- The court held the disputes arose from the same transactions or occurrences and presented common questions of law and fact, even though Tanbro’s relationships with Beaunit and Amity were based on separate contracts.

## Legal Principles

- Parties may be joined when the right to relief arises out of the same transactions or occurrences.
- Joinder is not barred merely because defendants have different duties to the plaintiff, or because the claims stem from separate contracts, if the disputes are factually interwoven.
- Consolidation is appropriate when actions share common questions and a joint trial will reduce duplicative proof and lessen the risk of inconsistent verdicts.
- Procedural rules governing joinder and consolidation are applied broadly to reduce multiple suits and allow determination of related responsibilities in one trial.

## Conclusion

Because all claims centered on the same goods and the same alleged defect, and because separate trials risked inconsistent findings that could leave responsibility unresolved, the court permitted joinder of the seller and processor and ordered consolidation of the related actions for a single trial.


Tanbro Fabrics Corp. v. Beaunit Mills, Inc., 167 N.Y.S.2d 387 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1957)