Berrian v. Chetwood

9 F. 678, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2536
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York·Decided December 14, 1881·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Blatchford, C. J.

Even conceding that there were proper written extensions of time to answer till November 1st, nothing that then or before or afterwards occurred in oral conversation between the attorneys amounted to a consent by the plaintiff’s attorney to extend the time to answer beyond November 1st. Bo, on November 3d, when the petition for removal was presented and the bond approved, the defendant’s time to answer had expired, he was in default, and there was no controversy between him and the plaintiff, within the meaning of the statute, so as to make a case for removal.

The motion to remand the cause is granted, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Berrian v. Chetwood, 9 F. 678, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2536 (circtndny 1881).

9 F. 678 (Berrian v. Chetwood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Greene v. Klinger
10 F. 689 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1882)