Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Nepstad
36 F.2d 947, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2305
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 17, 1929·No. No. 5706·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
This is a companion ease to Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Melin (No. 5671) 36 F.(2d) 907, to which reference is hereby made for a more particular statement of the facts.
The court instructed the jury as to what constituted a commercial orchard substantially as in the ease of Sacramento, etc., v. Nelson (No. 5683) 36 F.(2d) 929, and in the case of Sacramento, etc., v. Haenggi (No. 5678) 36 F.(2d) 923, and therein held erroneous.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Nepstad, 36 F.2d 947, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2305 (9th Cir. 1929).
36 F.2d 947 (Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Nepstad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
American Guaranty Co. v. Sunset Realty & Planting Co.
23 So. 2d 409 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1944)