Dancel v. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co.
This text of 106 F. 551 (Dancel v. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Motion to remand is denied. Service of summons without complaint did not set running the time within which, by the laws of the state, defendant is required “to answer or plead to the declaration or complaint of the plaintiff.” Wisely so, because until complaint is served defendant may not be able to determine what cause of action plaintiff asserts, — information which may be important to the decision whether he will or will not remove. Extension of time to answer (after default, when summons had been served] extended time to remove in this circuit, and rigid of removal was never lost.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
106 F. 551, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dancel-v-goodyear-shoe-machinery-co-circtsdny-1900.