Pilgrim v. Aetna Life Ins Co.
| Decision Date | 14 August 1916 |
| Parties | PILGRIM v. AETNA LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Lum Tamblyn & Colyer, of Newark, N.J., for plaintiff.
Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City, N.J., for defendant.
This suit was begun in the New Jersey Supreme Court. Rule 76 of that court, formerly 55 of 'The Practice Act of 1912' of New Jersey (N.J.P.L. 1912, p. 377) requires that the answer of the defendant be filed within 20 days after service of the summons. Rule 217, formerly 3 of said Practice Act authorizes the making of an order by said court, or a justice thereof, extending the time for the filing of said answer. In this case, on the application of the defendant, an order was made by one of the justices of that court, granting such an extension. Within the extended period, but after the date when, according to such rule, the defendant was required to plead, it caused said suit to be removed here. Section 29 of the Act of Congress of March 3, 1911, designated as 'The Judicial Code' provides that the party entitled to remove a suit from a state to a federal court shall file a petition--
'in such suit in such state court at the time, or any time before the defendant is required by the laws of the state or the rule of the state court in which such suit is brought to answer or plead to the declaration or complaint of the plaintiff, for the removal of such suit. * * * '
Said section 29 is mediately derived from section 3 of the act of Congress of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 471). Under the act of 1875, the suitor could remove the suit 'before or at the term at which said case could be first tried and before the trial thereof.'
The plaintiff moves to remand on the ground that the time had elapsed within which the suit could have been removed. So far as advised, this question has not been passed upon in this judicial circuit. The cases in the other circuits conflict upon the question whether an order made by the state court in the cause extending the time to plead likewise extends the time within which the cause may be removed.
In my judgment, the cases denying such latter extension, reflect the true construction of the limit placed on the right to remove by the federal statute. The legislative purpose in changing the time within which the removal was to be made seemingly was to require the suitor to make his election of the forum in which the case was to be tried...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hager v. New York Oil Co.
...v. Hulse (D. C.) 17 F.(2d) 785; Kraus v. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 79; Solomon v. Pa. R. Co. (D. C.) 240 F. 231; Pilgrim v. Ætna Life Ins. Co. (D. C.) 234 F. 958; Ry. Co. v. Daughtry, 138 U. S. 298, 11 S. Ct. 306, 34 L. Ed. 963; Olds v. City Trust, etc., Co. (C. C.) 114 F. 975; Tinker v. ......
-
Steelman v. All Continent Corp.
...of New York." It is true that the Ayers Case, cited by the Circuit Court of Appeals, was decided long before that of Pilgrim v. Ætna Life Insurance Co., supra; but it is also true that in the latter case there was no review of the then existing But it is argued that "what the court said (Ba......
-
Waverly Stone & Gravel Co. v. Waterloo, C.F. & N. Ry. Co.
... ... Railroad Co ... (C.C.) 42 F. 305; Austin v. Gagan (C.C.) 39 F ... 626, 5 L.R.A. 476; Pilgrim v. AEtna Life Insurance Co ... (D.C.) 234 F. 958; Charrion v. Romort Mfg. Co ... (D.C.) 236 F ... ...
-
Collins Mfg. Co. v. Wickwire Spencer Steel Co.
...Co. (C. C.) 40 F. 545; Spangler v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co. (C. C.) 42 F. 305; Fox v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C.) 80 F. 945; Pilgrim v. Ætna Fire Ins. Co. (D. C.) 234 F. 958; Waverly Stone & Gravel Co. v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co. (D. C.) 239 F. 561; Williams v. Wilson Fruit Co. (D. C.) 222 F. ......