Lord v. Lehigh Val. R. Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York
On Motion to Remand to State Court.
1Opinion of the Court
THOMAS, District Judge.
The proceedings to remove this action from the state to the federal court were instituted after the granting of an order extending the time to answer, and upon a motion to remand it is urged that the petition for removal must be filed at or before the defendant is required to plead by the rules of the courts of the state, and that an order extending the time to answer is not such a rule. In support of this proposition the plaintiff cites Howard v. Railway Co. (N. C.) 29 S. E. 778; Mining Co. v. Hunter (U. S. C. C., S. D. 1894) 60 Fed. 305; Velie v. Indemnity Co. (U. S.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Howard v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
- Austin v. GaganU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1889
- Schipper v. Consumer Cordage Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1895
- Wilcox & Gibbs Guano Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1894
- Delbanco v. SingletaryU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1889
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Groton Bridge & Manufacturing Co. v. American Bridge Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1905
- Waverly Stone & Gravel Co. v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1917
- Adams v. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1913
- O. G. Orr & Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins.District Court, S.D. New York · 1929
- Avent v. Deep River Lumber Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina · 1909
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.