Mayer v. Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
On Motion to Remand.
1Opinion of the Court
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
It is contended that the cause was removed too late, because, although there had been a stipulation between counsel that time to answer might be extended to a date subsequent to that oh which petition for removal was filed, no order of court to that effect had ever been obtained. Such contention is in accordance with the decision of this court in Schipper v. Cordage Co., 72 Fed. 803, and in subsequent cases. As the rules of the state court then stood, it was thought that a mere stipulation to extend (without order) could not be construed as requiring answer to be served…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Schipper v. Consumer Cordage Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1895
3Cited by11 opinions
- Adams v. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1913
- Earle C. Anthony, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1934
- Lord v. Lehigh Val. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1900
- Quilhot v. HamerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1907
- Russell v. Harriman Land Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1906
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.