Hubbard v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.
This text of 135 F. 256 (Hubbard v. Central of Georgia Ry. 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
The facts as to Rhett’s connection with defendant are set forth in greater detail, but the facts are substantially the same as were before this court in Reehan v. Central of Georgia (no opinion filed). The motion to set aside the service on him as representative of the defendant is granted.
The rule laid down in Purdy v. Wallace (C. C.) 81 Fed. 513, is a sound one, and should be followed here, and defendant have been actually informed of the pendency of the action before removal.
The motion to vacate the attachment is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
135 F. 256, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubbard-v-central-of-georgia-ry-co-circtsdny-1904.