Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. La Gue

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 that if as represented in the latter respect it would have been worth that price, but that, in fact, it is unsuitable for the growing of fruit, and hence was worth not to exceed $50 per acre. While not so generous as in the Wagner Case (C. C. A.) 40 F.(2d) 899 , this day decided, the jury returned a verdict for $300 in excess of the amount prayed for, and in harmony therewith judgment was entered for $2,500.

Upon the same record as that considered in the Tatham Case, defendant sought to disqualify the District Judge for personal bias, but, in view of our holding in that ease, this assignment need not be…