Legal Opinion
Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Nelson
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 17, 1929No. 5683PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
This is a companion case to Sacramento, etc., v. Melin (No. 5671) 36 F.(2d) 907, to which reference is made for a general statement of the situation involved in this ease.
The appellants asked the court to give the following instruction:
“The law presumes that a person is innocent of crime or wrong; that private transactions have been fair and regular; that the ordinary course of business has been followed.
“The presumption against fraud on the part of defendant must be overcome by the plaintiff.
“The evidence must amount to proof of fraud, and not a mere suspicion thereof.”
T…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Harris v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1931
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. TathamCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. La GueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. NepstadCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
- American Guaranty Co. v. Sunset Realty & Planting Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1944
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.