Moody v. Francis

Ninth Circuit

Moody v. Francis

66 F.2d 1003, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 2839

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 27, 1933

DocketNo. 6782

StatusPublished

This text of 66 F.2d 1003 (Moody v. Francis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moody v. Francis, 66 F.2d 1003, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 2839 (9th Cir. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

NORCROSS, District Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree in form similar to the decrees entered in case No. 6785 this day decided. 66 F.(2d) 999. The record discloses a state of facts similar to those considered in that ease, with the exception that in this ease, while water rights for the irrigation of approximately 200 acres of land are asserted, water for the irrigation of only 57.2 acres of the land, described is covered by the committee report referred to in the opinion in case No. 6785.

The decree is reversed, and case remanded to the District Court, with directions to dismiss the same for want of necessary party or parties, unless the plaintiff within a reasonable time amends his complaint to bring in such necessary party or parties,, and to take further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed in the opinion of this court.

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

NORCROSS, District Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree in form similar to the decrees entered in case No. 6785 this day decided. 66 F.(2d) 999. The record discloses a state of facts similar to those considered in that ease, with the exception that in this ease, while water rights for the irrigation of approximately 200 acres of land are asserted, water for the irrigation of only 57.2 acres of the land, described is covered by the committee report referred to in the opinion in case No. 6785.

The decree is reversed, and case remanded to the District Court, with directions to dismiss the same for want of necessary party or parties, unless the plaintiff within a reasonable time amends his complaint to bring in such necessary party or parties,, and to take further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed in the opinion of this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 F.2d 1003, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 2839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moody-v-francis-ca9-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack