Schipper v. Consumer Cordage Co.

Decision Date23 November 1895
Citation72 F. 803
PartiesSCHIPPER et al. v. CONSUMER CORDAGE CO., Limited.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

E. A. Bigelow, for libelants.

Charles L. Atterbury, for defendant.

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

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
16 cases
  • Burton v. Smith
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 21, 1926
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • May 6, 1905
    ...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.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1914
    ...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.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1898
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT