Schipper v. Consumer Cordage Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
This suit was brought in a state court by Charles W. (!. E. Schipper aud another against the Consumer Cordage Company,, Limited, and was removed to this court by defendant. A motion is now made to remand it, on the ground that the removal was too late, being after the expiration of the 20 days allowed for answer by the Code of Civil Procedure. The time for answering had been extended by stipulation, but not by order of court.
1Opinion of the Court
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
In Rycroft v. Green, 49 Fed. 177, it is stated to he the settled practice in this circuit to hold that extension of time to answer by order of court extends the time for removal. Such construction is within the language of the act of 1887, “before the defendant is required by the laws of the state or the rule of the state court * to answer.” But an extension of time to answer by stipulation only cannot he held to be an extension by rule of court. Motion to remand is granted.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rycroft v. GreenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1892
3Cited by15 opinions
- Bankers Securities Corp. v. Insurance Equities Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1936
- Groton Bridge & Manufacturing Co. v. American Bridge Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1905
- Pruitt v. Charlotte Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Chiatovich v. HanchettU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
- Mayer v. Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1899
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.