complain of the deprivation of some alleged constitutional right (Brief of plaintiff-appellant), but it is submitted that the mere nature of the action and the fact they are named in it does not deprive them of the right to be free from chaos and harassment. If they have done the acts alleged they will have to answer. Until then they are entitled to be proceeded against in an orderly manner.

Here a consolidated action existed with General Counsel already appointed. In such a situation where the issues set forth in a new complaint are in the main identical with those of the existing one, it has been consistently held that the interests of justice to all permit the consolidation of the new with the old under the General Counsel previously named. (Weis v. Coe, 265 App. Div. 471 (1st Dept. 1943); Meyers v. Cowdin, 263 App. Div. 730 (2nd Dept. 1941).)

It is unjust to be named as a defendant if you are not guilty; once so joined, the law neither requires nor permits undue harassment without protection to the defendants. Manning v. Mercantile Trust Co., 26 Misc. 440 (1899).

Defendants have no greater love for Mr. Paulson than does appellant. However he has been appointed General Counsel in the first consolidation. Because of this orderly procedure and the avoidance of duplication dictated that his appointment by the Special Term be expanded to include the further consolidation, particularly where the actions were essentially identical. Mr. Fieland apparently objects to consolidation only when he is not the moving party. See Newman v. Baldwin et al. (Sup. Ct. N. Y. Co. Index No. 10666-1956), N.Y.L.J. March 25, 1957.

CONCLUSION

The order of the Court below should be affirmed with costs.

Respectfully submitted,

Moss, WELS & MARCUS, Attorneys for Defendants, Alexander L. Guterma and

Robert J. Eveleigh.

JAMES L. ADLER, JR.,
RICHARD H. WELS,

SAMUEL J. GREENBERG, IRVING GROSSBACH and
ANNE J. MATHES,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

against
RICHARD S. CHILDS, EVERSLEY CHILDS, ALVAH E. DAVISON,

LESTER G. CLARK, A. E. CHEW, GEORGE LINK, JR., JAMES A.
NELSON, JAY E. RAND, NATHAN CUMMINGS, MAURICE A.
HALLAM, ARTHUR ROSENBERG, SAMUEL STEIN, ALEXANDER L.
GUTERMA, VIRGIL D. DARDI, HARRY S. ADAMS, ROBERT J.
EVELEIGH, MURRAY DELOS VAN WAGONER, PIERRE DU PAS-
QUIER, D. F. CUNNINGHAM, Sotiris FASSOULIS, JOSEPH C.
HOGAN, CARROL A. MUCCIA, LEA FABRICS, INC., ICYTHIAN, S.A.,
GUILD FILMS CO. INC., UNITED DYE AND CHEMICAL CORPORA-
TION, AND THE BON AMI COMPANY,

Defendants-Respondents.

ACTION No. 2

MEYER HOLSTẾIN, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of
THE BON AMI COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

against
ALEXANDER L. GUTERMA, VIRGIL D. DARDI, SOTIRIS FASSOULIS,

HARRY S. ADAMS, WALTER W. BIRGE, DANIEL F. CUNNINGHAM,
JR., ROBERT J. EVELEIGH, JOSEPH C. HOGAN, CARROL A. MUCCIA,
PIERRE DU PASQUIER, JAY E. RAND, MURRAY DELOS VAN
WAGONER, BALTIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION, ICYTHIAN Asso-
CIATES, S.A., GUILD FILMS COMPANY INC., SCRANTON FACTORS
CORPORATION, and THE BON AMI COMPANY, and GARLAND L.
CULPEPPER,

Defendants-Respondents.

BRIEF OF RESPONDENT THE BON AMI

COMPANY

Statement

This appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, directing the consolidation of two derivative stockholders' actions

brought by minority stockholders of respondent, The Bon Ami Company, against certain former officers and directors of respondent and others (fols. 22-33). The Greenberg action (Action No. 1) is a consolidated action wherein three other derivative stockholders' actions were consolidated (fols. 42-43). The consolidation had here was on motion made by defendants Guterma and Eveleigh (fols. 34-51). The order consolidating these actions appointed a general counsel and granted certain other relief (fols. 22-33).

The Issue

Appellant opposed complete consolidation and agreed only to a consolidated trial (fols. 159-160). The only ground urged on this appeal for a reversal of the order of consolidation is that appellant who is plaintiff in the Holstein action (Action No. 2) has been deprived of counsel of his own selection. In other words, the only question raised before this court relates to the fact that plaintiff Holstein's attorney was not appointed general counsel for plaintiffs in the consolidated action. Had plaintiff Holstein's attorney been so appointed, there probably would have been no appeal.