KEEP V. INDUNAPOUB & ST. LOUIS E. 00. 459 �but to the St. Louis depot. The court thought it unnecessary to con- fuse the jury with such questions, but, having the charter and contracts of the transit company before it, decided, as a matter of law, that the Indianapolis & St. Louis Eailroad was bouud to deliver plaintifE in St. Louis ; that its obligations could not be diseharged by any arrange- ment made by it with the transit company. It is thus that the main propositions arise. If the transit company was a common carrier, and the obligations of the Indianapolis & St. Louis Eailroad Com- pany terminated on surrendering the cars of its train to the former, as the terminal company, then the latter was not responsible. But it had not reached its depot in East St. Louis, and, whatever may have been its understanding with the transit company, the facts showed that the injury to plaintifi occurred during the process of discharging one motive force and attaching another. The varions authorities cited as to consolidation of causes, it is held, do not change the rule. It is true that when several causes of like nature are brought against the same defendant he may move to have them consolidated ; but it does not follow that causes of like nature against different defendants may not be heard at the same time, each case being heard and deter- mined as a distinct case, as was donc in this instance. Several text- writers and some adjudicated cases have been cited on the question of consolidation, which it is not deemed necessary to review, for most of them refer to state statutes considered inapplicable ; and the Hwo cases in United States courts are not in conflict with the views here- tofore expressed. �In 1 Batchf. 151, a motion was made to have a demurrer in one of eleven cases control the others, and the court denied the motion. Ample grounds, therefore, may have existed; just as in several cases between the same plaintiff and defendant the court will, in its discre- tion, not compel the decision in one to determine the others, unless the rights of all can be properly heard and settled in one of the suits — the others to abide the resuit. �The case of Holmes v. Sheridan, 1 Dill. 351, is illustrative, where the court, instead of consolidating the cases as if only one and the same cause of action was presented, ordered the two cases to be tried at the same time, and referred to state statutes for authority. �Sections 977 and 978 of the Revised Statutes indicate that the legis- lation of congress was directed to the trial of cases at the same time by formai consolidation or otherwise, when the time of the court could be thereby saved, costs and expanses avoided, and the rights of the parties litigant not prejudiced. It may seem somewhat anomalous ��� �
