Appeal from a judgment for the defendant, and an order denying a new trial, in the Nineteenth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Wheeler, J.
The complaint is in the ordinary form, for the recovery of two horses. The answer justifies the taking by the defendant, as Sheriff, under writs of attachment against the plaintiff, followed by judgments. Plaintiff claimed the property as exempt under the Code of Civil Procedure, § 690, subd. 6, and introduced evidence to show that he was a peddler or huckster, and habitually earned his living as such. The finding of the Court was as follows:
1st. That the main business of the plaintiff was, at the time of the taking of the property in controversy by the defendant, that of publisher of county directories and hand-books, and advertising agent.
2nd. That the property was not at the time of such taking exempt from attachment.
OPINION Department No. 1, by the Court (from the Bench):
In this case there is an entire failure to find upon many of the material issues made by the pleadings. There is a finding upon a probative fact, from which it might be argued that the Court below was of a certain opinion as respects one of the ultimate facts; but there is no direct finding upon that issue, i. e., as to whether the plaintiff was or was not a peddler or huckster. But, passing that, there are a great many other averments, in respect to which there is no pretense of a finding; and we will have to follow the usual course in this case.
We all think that the judgment and order must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial; and it is so ordered.