Ruby Canyon Gold Min. Co. v. Hunter
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Dakota
These were two suits brought; ⅛ a court of South, Dakota, one by the Ruby Canyon Gold Alining Company et al. against David Hunter et ah, and the other by William S. Elder, as administrator, et ah, against Thomas White et ah The defendants removed the suits into this court, and a motion is now made to remand them.
1Opinion of the Court
SANBORN, Circuit Judge.
Motions to remand these cases are made because, while the petitions and bonds for removal were fded in a state court within the time fixed by stipulations of the parties and orders of the court extending the time beyond that fixed by statute for the defendants to answer (as the parties and the court might lawfully do under the statutes of South Dakota,), they were not filed within the 30 days within which the defendants were required by those statutes to answer or plead to the complaints in the absence of such stipulations or orders. Comp. St. S. D. §§ 4908, 4939.
The…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad v. DaughtrySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Austin v. GaganU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1889
- Delbanco v. SingletaryU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1889
- Spangler v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1890
- Velie v. Manufacturers' Accident Indemnity Co. of the United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Midland Valley Railroad v. Hoffman Coal Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Pruitt v. Charlotte Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Irwin v. TaubmanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1910
- Wilson v. Big Joe Block Coal Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Ransom v. Sipple Truck Lines, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1943
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.