SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN FRUIT LANDS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
J. H. HANSON AND JENNIE B. HANSON, APPELLEES
SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN FRUIT LANDS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
J. H. HANSON AND JENNIE B. HANSON, APPELLEES
36 F.2d 946
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1929)
Opinion of the Court
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Simpson v. City OF Juneau, 36 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1929)
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Nelson, 36 F.2d 929 (9th Cir. 1929)
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Curtis, 36 F.2d 923 (9th Cir. 1929)
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Leitch, 36 F.2d 949 (9th Cir. 1929)