Carson & Rand Lumber Co. v. Holtzclaw

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri

Carson & Rand Lumber Co. v. Holtzclaw

44 F. 785, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1188

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri

DecidedJanuary 13, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 44 F. 785 (Carson & Rand Lumber Co. v. Holtzclaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carson & Rand Lumber Co. v. Holtzclaw, 44 F. 785, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1188 (circtdmo 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Thayer, J.,

(after stating facts as above.') In any view that maybe taken of the facts as above stated, the motion to remand must be sustained. Having failed in the effort to remove the cause on the ground of prejudice and local influence, it seems that an attempt was made to [786]*786remove on other grounds, by amending the original petition for removal some months after it had been filed.. The application was made too late, and the motion to remand must be sustained. It is so ordered. .

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

Thayer, J.,

(after stating facts as above.') In any view that maybe taken of the facts as above stated, the motion to remand must be sustained. Having failed in the effort to remove the cause on the ground of prejudice and local influence, it seems that an attempt was made to [786]*786remove on other grounds, by amending the original petition for removal some months after it had been filed.. The application was made too late, and the motion to remand must be sustained. It is so ordered. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 F. 785, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carson-rand-lumber-co-v-holtzclaw-circtdmo-1891.