Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Fredericksen

Ninth Circuit

Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Fredericksen

36 F.2d 933, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2296

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 17, 1929

DocketNo. 5685

StatusPublished

This text of 36 F.2d 933 (Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Fredericksen) 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

Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Fredericksen, 36 F.2d 933, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2296 (9th Cir. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

This is another of the Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands cases. The specifications of error are based on a consent order overruling a demurrer to the complaint and on the following exception to the charge of the court: “Defendant notes an exception to the instructions of the court on the subject of intent and- the absence of instructions upon that subject; also the instructions of the court upon the subject of the statute of limitations as outlined in the instructions proposed by defendant, and the failure of the court to instruct upon the affirmative allegations of the answer relative to the arrangement made in February, 1927, when the lands were retransferred by plaintiff.”

The consent order cannot be assigned as error. The court gave no instruction om the subject of intent as that term is understood in the law of deceit, and the absence [934]*934of an instruction cannot be assigned as error. Tbe instruction on tbe statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc. § 338), as outlined in tbe instruction proposed by tbe defendant, was not a proper one for the reasons stated in Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Schreindl (C. C. A. No. 5684) 36 F.(2d) 932, just decided, and the answer contains no affirmative allegations such as are referred' to in the exception.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

This is another of the Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands cases. The specifications of error are based on a consent order overruling a demurrer to the complaint and on the following exception to the charge of the court: “Defendant notes an exception to the instructions of the court on the subject of intent and- the absence of instructions upon that subject; also the instructions of the court upon the subject of the statute of limitations as outlined in the instructions proposed by defendant, and the failure of the court to instruct upon the affirmative allegations of the answer relative to the arrangement made in February, 1927, when the lands were retransferred by plaintiff.”

The consent order cannot be assigned as error. The court gave no instruction om the subject of intent as that term is understood in the law of deceit, and the absence [934]*934of an instruction cannot be assigned as error. Tbe instruction on tbe statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc. § 338), as outlined in tbe instruction proposed by tbe defendant, was not a proper one for the reasons stated in Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Schreindl (C. C. A. No. 5684) 36 F.(2d) 932, just decided, and the answer contains no affirmative allegations such as are referred' to in the exception.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 F.2d 933, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sacramento-suburban-fruit-lands-co-v-fredericksen-ca9-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack