[1] We are of the opinion that Finding Number 8 of the trial court set forth hereinabove is explicit and specific as to the order placed, and we are further of the opinion that the enumeration in the findings of the various specific sales and deliveries sufficiently negates by necessary inference the existence of a written contract in Oregon. (See Wood v. Girot, 102 Cal.App. 160, 165 [ 282 P. 981]; Metcalf v. Hill, 97 Cal.App. 597, 599 [ 275 P. 994]; Witkin, California Procedure (1954), vol. 2, p. 1850.) [2] Appellant asserts that "[t]o establish an oral contract, it was necessary to find authority in Mr. Cook to enter into a binding contract."
When the court found that those writings constituted an agreement to leave by will for a certain consideration which was not given, there was no room for a declaration of trust independent of such agreement in the same writings and no sense in considering them as creating an estoppel only. [14] A full finding on the contents of a writing is an implied negation of allegations inconsistent therewith and no express negative findings are required. (Compare 24 Cal.Jur. 976; Metcalf v. Hill, 97 Cal.App. 597, 599 [ 275 P. 994]; Haigler v. Donnelly, 18 Cal.2d 674, 678 [ 117 P.2d 331]; Scott v. Symons, 191 Cal. 441, 456-457 [ 216 P. 604].) Moreover appellant does not point out any evidence on which a finding favorable to her with respect to any such alternative legal effect could have been based.
Findings should receive such construction as will uphold rather than defeat the judgment. ( Ensele v. Jolley, 188 Cal. 297, 303 [ 204 P. 1085]; Metcalf v. Hill, 97 Cal.App. 597 [ 275 P. 994].) In support of the judgment in the present case it may reasonably be held the last challenged finding that "paragraphs I, II, III and IV (except wherein they have been specifically found to be true in the foregoing) are not true", is uncertain and void because it does not indicate whether the paragraphs referred to are contained in the complaint or in the answer.
Findings should be construed so as to uphold rather than to defeat a judgment, if reasonably possible. ( Ensele v. Jolley, 188 Cal. 297, 303 [ 204 P. 1085]; Metcalf v. Hill, 97 Cal.App. 597 [ 275 P. 994].) It is apparent that in attempting to refute each of the specific charges of negligence against the plaintiff and his son, the challenged finding inadvertently omitted to repeat the words "it is not true" as applied to the last two denials therein contained.