Legal Opinion
Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Melin
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 17, 1929No. 5671PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DIETRICH, Circuit Judge.
The enterprise out of which this controversy arises is described in Sacramento Sub. Fruit Lands Co. v. Elm (C. C. A.) 29 F.(2d) 233, and Wellnitz v. Sac. Sub. F. L. Co. (Cal. App.) 274 P. 1016, and the general background of facts is the same. The plaintiff (appellee) purchased, or contracted to purchase, from defendant two separate tracts of ten acres each, at the agreed price of $350 per aere. He was then living at Frederic, Wis., and had never resided in California. But before he entered into either contract he came to Sacramento and spent some time in going over and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Peck v. HeurichSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Phelps v. GradyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Herdan v. HansonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Crandall v. ParksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- United States v. David F. Brown, Tore T. Debella, Richard A. Reizen, Robert F. EhrlingCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996
- Foster & Kleiser Co. v. Special Site Sign Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Anglo California Nat. Bank of San Francisco v. LazardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
- Saulsbury Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1944
- Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. TathamCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.