Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8806998
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Hewitt Inv. Co. v. Minnesota & Oregon Land & Timber Co.
No. 8806998 · Decided February 2, 1914
No. 8806998·Ninth Circuit · 1914·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
February 2, 1914
Citation
No. 8806998
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MORROW, Circuit Judge. The Minnesota & Oregon Land & -Timber Company (a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of tire state of Minnesota) filed its amended complaint in the court below against the Hewitt Investment Company (a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Washington) for the purpose of compelling the defendant corporation to make, execute, and deliver to one E. Z. Ferguson (who was joined as a party complainant in said action), for and on behalf of the complainant corporation, a deed for the following described real property, situate in Clatsop.county, Or., pursuant to an agreement for the sale of said lands alleged to have been entered into between the defendant corporation and said E. Z. Ferguson, acting on behalf of and as agent for said plaintiff, Minnesota & Oregon Land & Timber Company: The S. E. % of the N. E. % and the N. E. % of the S. E. *4 of section 10, the S. W. % of the N. W. % and the N. W. % of the S. W. % of section 11, the S. E. % of section 17, the E. y2 of the N. W. % and the W. % of the N. E. % of section 20, and the N. E. % of section 30, all in township 6 N., of range 6 W. of the Willamette meridian, all in Clatsop county, Or. This case was tried in the court below before Judge Wolverton, who heard the witnesses and saw their demeanor on the stand. His opinion (Minnesota & Oregon Land & Timber Co. v. Hewitt Inv. Co. [D. C.] 201 Fed. 752 ) contains a very full and searching review of the testimony in the case. We have read that testimony, and have considered it in the light of the arguments submitted on behalf of the appellant for a reversal of the decree. We find no reason to differ from the learned judge in the court below in the conclusions he reached upon the evidence in the case. For the reasons there stated, the decree of the court below is affirmed.
Plain English Summary
The Minnesota & Oregon Land & -Timber Company (a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of tire state of Minnesota) filed its amended complaint in the court below against the Hewitt Investment Company (a
Key Points
01The Minnesota & Oregon Land & -Timber Company (a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of tire state of Minnesota) filed its amended complaint in the court below against the Hewitt Investment Company (a
02Ferguson (who was joined as a party complainant in said action), for and on behalf of the complainant corporation, a deed for the following described real property, situate in Clatsop.county, Or., pursuant to an agreement for the sale of sa
03Ferguson, acting on behalf of and as agent for said plaintiff, Minnesota & Oregon Land & Timber Company: The S.
04This case was tried in the court below before Judge Wolverton, who heard the witnesses and saw their demeanor on the stand.
Frequently Asked Questions
The Minnesota & Oregon Land & -Timber Company (a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of tire state of Minnesota) filed its amended complaint in the court below against the Hewitt Investment Company (a
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Hewitt Inv. Co. v. Minnesota & Oregon Land & Timber Co. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on February 2, 1914.
Use the citation No. 8806998 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.