Arthur v. Maryland Casualty Co.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
At Law. Action by Rachel Arthur against the Maryland Casualty Company. On motion to remand.
1Opinion of the Court
DODGE, Circuit Judge.
It is not disputed that the transcript of record filed here affirmatively shows the necessary jurisdictional facts to warrant, removal. The plaintiff is a citizen of Massachusetts, the defendant a citizen of Maryland, and the amount involved more than $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The necessary bond has been filed and accepted by the state court. But the defendant did not giye the plaintiff ‘‘written notice of said petition and bond for removal * =:• * prior to filing' the same,” as required by section 29 of the Judicial Code. There is nothing to excuse the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Goins v. Southern Pac. Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1912
- United States ex rel. Butterworth & Lowe v. SessionsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1913
- Loland v. Northwest Stevedore Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 1913
- Wanner v. BissingerDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1913
- Potter v. General Baking Co.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1914
3Cited by10 opinions
- Vadner v. VadnerDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1918
- Flowers v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1947
- La Belle Box Co. v. StricklinCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
- Lee v. Continental Ins.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1923
- Mellon v. International Shoe Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1929
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.