
    SCHIPPER et al. v. CONSUMER CORDAGE CO., Limited.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    November 23, 1895.)
    Removal op Causes — Time pou Removal.
    An extension of the statutory time to answer by mere stipulation, and not by order of court, does not extend the time for removal. Rycroft v. Green, 49 Red. 177, distinguished.
    This suit was brought in a state court by Charles W. (!. E. Schipper aud another against the Consumer Cordage Company,, Limited, and was removed to this court by defendant. A motion is now made to remand it, on the ground that the removal was too late, being after the expiration of the 20 days allowed for answer by the Code of Civil Procedure. The time for answering had been extended by stipulation, but not by order of court.
    E. A. Bigelow, for libelants.
    Chai-Ies L. Atterbury, for defendant.
   LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

In Rycroft v. Green, 49 Fed. 177, it is stated to he the settled practice in this circuit to hold that extension of time to answer by order of court extends the time for removal. Such construction is within the language of the act of 1887, “before the defendant is required by the laws of the state or the rule of the state court * to answer.” But an extension of time to answer by stipulation only cannot he held to be an extension by rule of court. Motion to remand is granted.  