Corporations
SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN FRUIT LANDS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. N. H. NEPSTAD, Appellee
36 F.2d 947·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. N. H. NEPSTAD, Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
December 17, 1929.
Motion for Modification of Opinion Denied January 13, 1930.
No. 5706.
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 appellee.
Before RUDKIN, DIETRICH, and WILBUR, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — WILBUR, Circuit Judge.]
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
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.