Legal Opinion
Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Tipper
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 17, 1929No. 5701PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.
This is another of the Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands cases. The first assignment of error is based on an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The demurrer was general for want of sufficient facts, and under the California practice such a demurrer does not raise the defense of the statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc. § 338, subd. 4). California Safe, etc., Co. v. Sierra, etc., Co., 158 Cal. 690, 112 P. 274, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 729; Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Melin (C. C. A.) 36 F.(2d) 907, just decided.
The next error assigned is the denial of a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cal. Safe Deposit & Tr. Co. v. Sierra Valleys Ry.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. ZdarskyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. JensenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
3Cited by7 opinions
- Foster & Kleiser Co. v. Special Site Sign Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Dayton Rubber Mfg. Co. of Delaware v. SabraCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1933
- Humphreys Gold Corp. v. LewisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. LindquistCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.