Case Name: SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN FRUIT LANDS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. N. H. NEPSTAD, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1929-12-17
Citations: 36 F.2d 947
Docket Number: No. 5706
Parties: SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN FRUIT LANDS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. N. H. NEPSTAD, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 36
Pages: 947–947

Head Matter:
SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN FRUIT LANDS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. N. H. NEPSTAD, Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
December 17, 1929.
Motion for Modification of Opinion Denied January 13, 1930.
No. 5706.
Butler, Van Dyke & Desmond, of Sacramento, Cal., and Edward P. Kelly, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
Ralph H. Lewis and George E. McCutchen, both of Sacramento, Cal., for appellee.
Before RUDKIN, DIETRICH, and WILBUR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
This is a companion ease 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 ease 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.
Judgment reversed.