Mayer v. Ft. Worth & D.C.R. Co.
Decision Date | 08 April 1899 |
Parties | MAYER v. FT. WORTH & D.C.R. CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
A. J. Dittenhoefer, for plaintiff.
Noah H. Swayne, for certain defendants.
It is contended that the cause was removed too late, because, although there had been a stipulation between counsel that time to answer might be extended to a date subsequent to that on which petition for removal was filed, no order of court to that effect had ever been obtained. Such contention is in accordance with the decision of this court in Schipper v. Cordage Co., 72 F. 803, and in subsequent cases. As the rules of the state court then stood, it was thought that a mere stipulation to extend (without order) could not be construed as requiring answer to be served on the day named, 'by the rule of the state court,' which is the phrase used in the federal statute. Attention is now called to the revised phraseology of rule 24 ( ), adopted January 1, 1896, which reads as follows:
This rule, coupled with the stipulation, may fairly be held to make an extension 'by rule of the state court,' and the removal should be held to be in time. The defendant Dodge, who, it is alleged, is a citizen of New York, does not seem to be a necessary party. Motion to remand denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lord v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.
... ... Cordage Co. (C.C.) 72 F. 803; Allmark v. Steamship ... Co. (C.C.) 76 F. 614; and Mayer v. Railroad Co ... (C.C.) 93 F. 601. A similar ruling has been made in ... other circuits ... ...
-
Adams v. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co.
... ... Lockhart v. Railroad Co. (C.C.) 38 F. 274; Mayer ... v. Railroad Co. (C.C.) 93 F. 601; Lord v. Railroad ... Co. (C.C.) 104 F. 929; Chiatovich v ... ...
-
Silverstein v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of California
...this state for many years that application for removal within the extended time is compliance with section 72, supra. Mayer v. Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. (C.C.) 93 F. 601; Groton B. & M. Mfg. Co. v. American Bridge Co. (C.C.) 137 F. 284, and many others, some of the latest being: Glauber v. L......
-
Silverstein v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
...72 F. 803. But since the revision in 1896 of rule 24 of the General Rules of Practice (now rule 87) and the decision of Mayer v. Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. (C.C.) 93 F. 601, the federal courts in this state have uniformly held that a stipulation extending the time to answer enlarges the time ......