Rycroft v. Green

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York

Decided February 6, 1892.)

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York · decided 1892-02-06

<p>Removal of Causes — Extension of Time to Answer.</p> <p>In view of the Code rales and practice of Die courts of New York, an extension of time to answer by order of court extends the time for removal.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““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 rules and practice of the courts of this state, seems conformable alike to the loiter and the spirit of the removal act.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Garrard v. Silver Peak Mines, Lord v. Lehigh Val. R. Co.

Relies on National Bank v. Hall

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Motion to remand · Decided 1892-02-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 1934

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Removal of Causes — Extension of Time to Answer.

¶2In view of the Code rales and practice of Die courts of New York, an extension of time to answer by order of court extends the time for removal.

¶3At Law.

¶4Motion to remand.

¶5Henry Thompson, for the motion.

¶6George W. Wickersham, opposed.

¶7Lacombe, Circuit Judge.

¶8It 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