Mahoney v. New South Building & Loan Ass'n
| Decision Date | 07 November 1895 |
| Citation | 70 F. 513 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
| Parties | MAHONEY v. NEW SOUTH BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N. |
Harrison & Long, for plaintiff.
McHugh & Baker, for defendant.
This is a motion to remand a cause removed into this court from the circuit court of the city of Roanoke, Va. The defendant is a corporation of the state of Louisiana; the plaintiff a citizen of the state of Virginia, resident in said city of Roanoke. The defendant filed its petition for removal with bond in the same circuit court for the city of Roanoke, and obtained the order of the court for the removal. The record coming into this court, this motion to remand is made. There is but a single question in the case,-- was the petition for removal filed within the proper time? The summons in this case was originally issued on 11th March, 1895, returnable to the rules to be holden on third Monday of March thereafter. An attempt at service was made on 15th March. On second March rules, 1895, this indorsement was made: 'Decn. filed and C.O.,'-- that is, declaration filed and common order entered. On first April rules, the common order was confirmed, and writ of inquiry granted. But on 17th April 1895, the court made an order setting aside the service as defective, and on motion of plaintiff the cause was remanded to the rules. A new summons was issued 6th August, 1895 returnable to the rules to be holden on third Monday of August then next ensuing, which summons was issued 7th August, 1895. At the second August rules, this indorsement was made: ' And at first September rules this entry was made: 'Defendant filed petition and bond for removal of cause to U.S. court, and W.E.' (writ of inquiry). The practice in Virginia is this: The defendant is brought into court by a summons requiring him to appear on a certain day, when a declaration will be or has been filed. If he fail to appear and plead the clerk enters what is called the 'common order.' ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ransom v. Sipple Truck Lines
...sometimes been criticised as dictum by certain lower federal courts that were reluctant to follow it. E. g., Mahoney v. New South Building & Loan Ass'n, C.C.W.D. Va., 70 F. 513, and Wilson v. Winchester & P. R. Co., C.C.W.Va., 82 F. 15, affirmed with only slight consideration 4 Cir., 99 F. ......
-
Connor v. Real Title Corporation
...as a ruling on the point in question was not necessary for the decision of the Martin case, Judge Simonton, in Mahoney v. New South Building & Loan Association C.C., 70 F. 513, held that the ruling was purely obiter, and promptly refused to follow it. Judge Jackson, in Wilson v. Winchester ......
-
Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Hubbard
...the validity of any and all of his defenses should be tried and determined in the circuit court of the United States.' In Mahoney v. Association (C.C.) 70 F. 513, Judge holding the above opinion to be obiter, ruled that the petition and bond may be seasonably filed at the rule day next succ......
-
Garrard v. Silver Peak Mines
...the dissolution of the injunction is not the sort of a plea or answer contemplated by the provisions of the act before quoted. Mahoney v. Association, 70 F. 513. Rycroft v. Green, 49 F. 177, the court said: 'It is the law and practice of this circuit that an extension of time to answer by o......