Schipper v. Consumer Cordage Co.
Decision Date | 23 November 1895 |
Citation | 72 F. 803 |
Parties | SCHIPPER et al. v. CONSUMER CORDAGE CO., Limited. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
E. A. Bigelow, for libelants.
Charles L. Atterbury, for defendant.
In Rycroft v. Green, 49 F. 177, it is stated to be the settled practice in this circuit to hold that extension of time to answer bye order of court extends the time for removal. Such construction is within the language of the act of 1887, 'before the defendant is required by the laws of the state or the rule of the state court * * * to answer. ' But an extension of time to answer by stipulation only cannot be held to be an extension by rule of court. Motion to remand is granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burton v. Smith
...Rock Island Nat. Bank v. Keator Lbr. Co., 52 F. 897; Wilcox & Gibbs Guano Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (C. C.) 60 F. 929; Schipper v. Consumer Cordage Co. (C. C.) 72 F. 803; note, 26 Ann. Cas. 1337; 23 R. C. L. 614. And this is just, for, "by the exercise of the right of removal, the petitioner ......
-
Groton Bridge & Manufacturing Co. v. American Bridge Co.
...to extend the time for a removal, and cites authorities in support of this proposition. Martin v. Carter (C.C.) 48 F. 596; Schipper v. Cordage (C.C.) 72 F. 803. the question depends solely upon what 'is required by the laws of the state or the rule of the state court in which such suit is b......
-
Pruitt v. Charlotte Power Co.
...476; Velie v. Indemnity Co. (C. C.) 40 F. 545; Martin v. Carter (C. C.) 48 F. 596; Mining Co. v. Hunter (C. C.) 60 F. 305; Schippior v. Cordage Co. (C. C.) 72 F. 803; Heller v. Lumber Co. (C. C.) 178 F. 111; Wayt Standard Co. (C. C.) 189 F. 231. Besides, the petition to remove does not suff......
-
Howard v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... cited in opposition (Wilcox & Gibbs Guano Co. v. Ph nix ... Ins. Co., 60 F. 929, and Schipper v. Cordage ... Co., 72 F. 803) both expressly state that if the ... extension of time is by ... ...