Stough v. Hatch

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York

Stough v. Hatch

23 F. Cas. 177, 16 Blatchf. 233, 20 Alb. Law J. 78, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2107

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York

DecidedMay 1, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 23 F. Cas. 177 (Stough v. Hatch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stough v. Hatch, 23 F. Cas. 177, 16 Blatchf. 233, 20 Alb. Law J. 78, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2107 (circtedny 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

BENEDICT, District Judge.

This cause was upon the calendar of causes for trial, at the circuit of the supreme court of the state, at the January term, 1879. It was noticed for trial at that term, by the plaintiff, and a note of issue for that term was tiled by the plaintiff. It was not tried at that term, both sides having consented that the cause go off for the term. After the expiration of that term, application was made to the state court to remove the cause to this court, which application was granted. The plaintiff now’ moves this court to remand the cause to the state court, on the ground that the application to remove was made too late. This motion must be granted. The January term, 1879, was “the term at which said cause could be first tried.” within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 470,) for the cause was at issue, duly noticed for trial, and subject to be tried on its merits at that term. That the parties were not prepared for a trial at that term, and consented that the cause go off the calendar for that term, are facts that do not affect the question here.

Motion granted.

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

BENEDICT, District Judge.

This cause was upon the calendar of causes for trial, at the circuit of the supreme court of the state, at the January term, 1879. It was noticed for trial at that term, by the plaintiff, and a note of issue for that term was tiled by the plaintiff. It was not tried at that term, both sides having consented that the cause go off for the term. After the expiration of that term, application was made to the state court to remove the cause to this court, which application was granted. The plaintiff now’ moves this court to remand the cause to the state court, on the ground that the application to remove was made too late. This motion must be granted. The January term, 1879, was “the term at which said cause could be first tried.” within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 470,) for the cause was at issue, duly noticed for trial, and subject to be tried on its merits at that term. That the parties were not prepared for a trial at that term, and consented that the cause go off the calendar for that term, are facts that do not affect the question here.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F. Cas. 177, 16 Blatchf. 233, 20 Alb. Law J. 78, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stough-v-hatch-circtedny-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack