Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN FRUIT LANDS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. J. H. HANSON and Jennie B. Hanson, Appellees, 1929 — 36 F.2d 946 · caselaw · US
Corporations
SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN FRUIT LANDS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. J. H. HANSON and Jennie B. Hanson, Appellees
36 F.2d 946·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1929
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN FRUIT LANDS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. J. H. HANSON and Jennie B. Hanson, Appellees.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
December 17, 1929.
Motion for Modification of Opinion Denied January 13, 1930.
No. 5705.
Butler, Van Dyke & Desmond, of Sacramento, Cal., and Edward P. Kelly, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
Ralph H. Lewis and George E. McCutchen, both of Sacramento, Cal., for appellees.
Before RUDKIN, DIETRICH, and WILBUR, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — WILBUR, Circuit Judge.]
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
This is a companion case 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 case 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. It also permitted the witness Davis to testify over objection that his company lost $47,000 by failure on an adjoining tract as in the case of Sacramento, etc., v. Leitch (No. 5723) 36 F.(2d) 949.
Judgment reversed.