Opinion
Department 1. Appeal from superior court, county of Plumas.
Plaintiff is the assignee of Tremain & Co., for the benefit of their creditors, and brings this action against defendant, as sheriff, for the recovery of property alleged to have been wrongfully taken from his possession, as such assignee, in pursuance of an attachment against Tremain & Co. Defendant claims that the assignment is invalid because it does not include all of the assignor’s property. It seems that all of the debtor’s property is not, in fact, included in the assignment, but plaintiff claims that such as is omitted is exempt by law. The findings show that the assignment does not include all of the property, but do not show that the omitted property is exempt. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals, assigning as error the insufficiency of such finding to sustain the judgment.
COUNSEL
[2 Cal.Unrep. 697] A. L. Shinn, E. T. Hogan, and W. W. Kellogg, for defendant and appellant.
R. H. F. Variel and M. Ball, for plaintiff and respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT.
It does not appear from the findings that the property omitted from the assignment was in fact exempt from execution.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.