KEBTING V. AMERICAN OLEOGBAPH 00. 17 �Kbeting V. Amekican Oleooeaph Co. and others.' �{Circuit Court, N. D. lUinoia. December 23, 1881.) �1. RemovaIi of Causes — Motion to Remand. �A bill was flled in a state court on October 21, 1880, and the cause was at issue and standing for hearing on November 30, 1880. Under the law of the State there was a term of that court held every month, commencing on the third Monday of each month, and the rule of the court in the trial of equity cases was that where any chancery case is at issue, upon notice and motion of ' either party, a cause, at any time within 10 days of the commencement of a term for which a trial calendar may be ordered made, may be placed on the trial calendar, etc. The cause was placed upon the trial calendar oh March 30, 1881, and an application was made to the state court on May 16, 1881, to re- move the cause to the circuit court of the Dnited States, when a record of the cause was filed in that court. Seld, on a motion to remand, that the cause must be remanded to the state court, on the ground that the application for removal was made too late, within the meaning of the third section of the act of congress of 1875. �Motion to Eemand. �C. M. Hardy, for complainant. �Conger e Gorten, for defendant. �Drummond, C. J. a motion is made in this case to remand it to the circuit court of Cook county. The bill was filed in that court on the twenty-first of October, 1880, and the process issued in the cause was returned to the November term. Under the law there is a term every month of that court, commencing on the third Monday of each month. The answers were filed to the bill on the sixteenth of Novem- ber, 1880. On the thirtieth of March, 1881, an order was made by the state court on the application of the plaintiff, and due notice that the cause should be set for hearing for the April term next. On the sixteenth of May, 1881, during the April term, and before the cause was heard, an application was made, under the act of ] 875, for the removal of the cause to this court upon the proper petition and bond filed. There was at that time filed in this court a record from the state court; and, some time since, objection was made that the application for removal had not been made in time, which was then held not to be valid, because, by the transcript from the state court, it did not appear that any replication had been filed to the answer, and that the cause was at issue. Since then there bas been a supplemental transcript filed from the state court, from which it appears that, after this objec- tion was taken in this court, an application was made to the state v.lO.no.l— 2 ��� �
