Uhle v. Burnham
| Decision Date | 14 April 1890 |
| Citation | 42 F. 1 |
| Parties | UHLE et al v. BURNHAM et al. FISCHL et al. v. SAME. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Chas. Putzel, for plaintiffs.
David A. Sullivan, (Don M. Dickinson, of counsel,) for defendants.
The plaintiffs in both actions are aliens, and the defendants are residents of the state of Missouri. Both actions were commenced by the service of a summons in the supreme court of New York. Within the 20 days allowed by the law of New York for defendants to answer or plead, they removed the cases into this court. Plaintiffs move to remand.
Chas. Putzel, for plaintiffs, cited: Denton v. International Co., 36 F. 1; Galvin v. Boutwell, 9 Blatchf. 470; Meyer v. Herrera, ante, 65; Halstead v. Manning, 34 F. 565; Harold v. Mining Co., 33 F. 529.
David A. Sullivan, (Don M. Dickinson, of counsel,) for defendants, cited; Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. Interstate Lumber Co., 37 F. 5; Burck v. Taylor, 39 F. 581; Cooley v. McArthur, 35 F. 372; First Nat. Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 37 F. 657; Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U.S. 10; In re Schollenberger, 96 U.S. 369; Sayles v. Insurance Co., 2 Curt. 212; Barney v. Bank, 5 Blatchf. 107; Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 387; Green v. Custard, 23 How. 484; Wilson v. Telegraph Co., 34 F. 561; Loomis v. Coal Co., 33 F. 353; Fales v. Railroad Co., 32 F. 673.
It seems unnecessary to add anything to the full discussion of the questions raised on this motion which will be found in
Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. Interstate Lumber Co., 37 F. 3, (by Judge BREWER,) and Burck v. Taylor, 39 F. 581, (by Judge MAXEY.) The motion to remand is denied. See, also, First Nat. Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 37 F. 657.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
...Bank v. Merchants' Bank (C.C.) 37 F. 657, 2 L.R.A. 469; Burck v. Taylor (C.C.) 39 F. 581; Amsinck v. Balderston (C.C.) 41 F. 641; Uhle v. Burnham (C.C.) 42 F. 1; Crocker Bank v. Pagenstacher (C.C.) 44 F. 705; Sherwood v. Miss. Valley Co. (C.C.) 55 F. 1; Long v. Long (C.C.) 73 F. 369; Duncan......
-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Garnett
...v. Interstate Lbr. Co. (C. C.), 37 F. 3; Brewer v. First Nat. Bank case (C. C.), 41 F. 581; Amsinck Case (C. C.), 41 F. 641 (Gray); Uhle Case (C. C.), 42 F. 1; Crocker Nat. Bank (C. C.), 44 F. 705; Shirwood Case (C. C.), 55 F. 1; Long Case (C. C.), 91 F. 417; Stalker Case (C. C.), 83 F. 989......
-
Foulk v. Gray
... ... Long v. Long (C.C.) 73 F. 369; Sherwood v ... Mississippi Valley Co. (C.C.) 55 F. 1; Bank v ... Pagenstecher (C.C.) 44 F. 705; Uhle v. Burnham ... (C.C.) 42 F. 1; Amsinck v. Balderston (C.C.) 41 ... F. 641; Burck v. Taylor (C.C.) 39 F. 581; Kansas ... City & T.R. Co. v ... ...
-
Sagara v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
... ... v. Assurance Soc. (C.C.) 83 F. 849; Stalker v ... Pullman's Co. (C.C.) 81 F. 989; Sherwood v ... Newport N. & M.V. Co. (C.C.) 55 F. 1; Uhle & Fischl ... v. Burnham (C.C.) 42 F. 1; Kansas City Co. v. Lumber ... Co. (C.C.) 37 F. 3; Burck v. Taylor (C.C.) 39 ... F. 581-- although Harold ... ...