Rycroft v. Green
49 F. 177, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1594
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided February 6, 1892·Published·Cited by 5 cases
Opinion
It is the law and practice of this circuit that an extension of time to answer by order of court, whether made on stipulation or not, extends the time for removal. This was settled practice here before the decisions in other circuits, which are referred to on the argument, and, in view of what an “extension of time to answer” is under the Code rales and practice of the courts of this state, seems conformable alike to the letter and the spirit of the removal act
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rycroft v. Green, 49 F. 177, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1594 (circtsdny 1892).
49 F. 177 (Rycroft v. Green) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Municipality of Cayey v. Ormaechea
9 P.R. Fed. 207 (D. Puerto Rico, 1916)
Chiatovich v. Hanchett
78 F. 193 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada, 1897)
Garrard v. Silver Peak Mines
76 F. 1 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada, 1896)
Schipper v. Consumer Cordage Co.
72 F. 803 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1895)
Wilcox & Gibbs Guano Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co.
60 F. 929 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina, 1894)