Cropsey v. Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n
District Court, D. New Jersey
At Law. Action by Eva P. Crop'sey against the Sun Printing & Publishing Association. On motion to remand the case to the state court.
1Opinion of the Court
RELLSTAB, District Judge.
The only ground of the motion is that the notice of intended removal gjven is insufficient.
Section 29 of the Judicial Code requires that written notice of the petition and bond for removal be given the adverse party prior to filing the same. The petition and bond for removal were filed on March 30, 1914. The notice was served on March 28, 1914, and stated that such petition and bond would be filed “on or before the 2d day of April, 1914.” The insufficiency asserted is that no definite day or time was named when such paper would be filed.
The notice was within the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Marshall v. HolmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Woolridge v. McKennaUnited States Circuit Court · 1881
- Hansford v. Stone-Ordean-Wells Co.District Court, D. Montana · 1912
- Goins v. Southern Pac. Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1912
- Wanner v. BissingerDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1913
3Cited by8 opinions
- Frazier v. HinesDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1919
- Flowers v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1947
- Lee v. Continental Ins.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1923
- Lewis v. Erie R.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1919
- Kueck v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins.District Court, S.D. New York · 1932
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.