r VARGUED AND DETEBMINED _
· ru rn
• • • O O
abated ,§’tsttm Qttmut mn! gmtutt Gluuvtz.
STOUTENBURGH v. WHAn1·0N. A
, V 'Oircuit Uaurt, D. New Jersey. October 12, 1883.)  
Rmuoviu. on CAUSES—-FAILURE ro Frm Corr or Rnconn mom Srnm Cormr
wrrnm Ruquumn Tnvm. · r
Suits pending in the state courts can only be transferred into the federal
courts by authority of the laws of congress; and where parties seek to avail
themselves of the provisions of such acts tney must comply with all the tcrms
and conditions imposed in them. The requirement of the act·of 1875, that a
copy of the record of the proceedings in the state court shall be filed in the _
circuit court on the first day of the next sessionthereof following the filing of —
the petition for removal, is mandatory, and an order extending the time within
which the copy of the record shall be filed, can only be allowed in cases where
it is impossible for the party removing the cause to obtain the required copy. ·
Motion to File Record. Rule to show cause.
P. L. Voorhees, for the rule. `
J. Emmett Stoutenburgh, contra. A
Nrxou, J. The only question presented in the case is whether the
defendant should be allowed to tile in this court, at the present term,
a copy of the record of the proceedings in the state court. The facts
are these: On the fifteenth of August, 1882, a suit was commenced
in the supreme court of the state of New Jersey by summons return-
able October 10, 1882. The declaration was duly filed on November
2d following. Before the time had expired for the defendant to plead,
to-wit, on December 1, 1882, according to the provisions of the third
section of the act of March 3, 1875, he presented his petition to the
state court for the removal of the cause. accompanied with a bond,
v.18,no.1—1