Tipper

Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Tipper

Good Law
36 F.2d 941·1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2303
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 17, 1929No. 5701California651 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rudkin, J.

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 motion for a directed verdiet at the close of all the testimony. No exception was taken to the ruling of the court in that regard until after the verdiet was returned, and for that reason the assignment cannot be considered.

The remaining assignments are based on instructions given by the court, or on the refusal of the court to give instructions requested by the appellant. The exceptions to the instructions given by the court are entirely too vague and indefinite to present any question for review, so we will pass at once to a consideration of the instructions requested and refused.

The first request related to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.