Legal Opinion
Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. La Gue
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 19, 1930No. 5856PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DIETRICH, Circuit Judge.
There is no question of the statute of limitations and plaintiffs (appellees) make no claim on account of improvements. In most other respects the ease is not substantially unlike that of Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Tatham (C. C. A.) 40 F.(2d) 894, this day decided.
In Iowa, where they were then residing, plaintiffs, on March 30, 1926, contracted to buy from defendant ten acres of the Rio Linda tract at $400 per acre. They allege that they were induced so to do by false representations touching the value of the land and its availability for fruit raising, and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Montana Railway Co. v. WarrenSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. TathamCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. KlaffenbachCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. NelsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
3Cited by3 opinions
- Brill v. MushinskyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952
- Mayers v. AlexanderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Aycrigg v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1954