Miller v. Kent
| Decision Date | 17 May 1882 |
| Parties | MILLER v. KENT. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Linus A. Gould, for plaintiff.
Henry S. Bennett, for defendant.
In the absence of any explanation of the delay in moving to remand this action, it should be determined that, by the delay of over a year since the cause was removed to this court, before making this motion to remand, the plaintiff has lost his right to insist that the petition for removal was not filed in time.
Motion denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
Manas y Pineiro v. Chase Manhattan Bank, NA
...can waive her right to object to this defect. French, Trustee v. Hay, 89 U.S. (22 Wall.) 238, 244-45, 22 L.Ed. 854 (1875); Miller v. Kent, 18 F. 561 (C.C.S.D.N.Y.1882); Bailey v. Texas Co., 47 F.2d 153, 155 (2d Cir. 1931). By failing to move for remand, proceeding with discovery under the f......
-
Weeks v. The Fidelity and Casualty Company of NY
...failure to file the petition within the allotted time may be waived, or objection to such failure may be precluded by estoppel. Miller v. Kent, C.C., 18 F. 561; Marking v. New St. Louis & Calhoun Packet Co., D.C., 48 F.Supp. 680; Hamilton v. Hayes Freight Line, D.C., 102 F.Supp. The appelle......
-
McGregor v. McGillis
...plaintiff had unseasonably delayed making a motion to remand, the question of waiver would present a different aspect. The facts in Miller v. Kent, 18 F. 561, cited counsel's brief, are not given in the report of the case, but I have no doubt the facts were that the removing party filed a c......
- The Collins Co. v. Oliver Ames & Sons Corp.