Peebler v. Danziger

California Court of Appeal

Peebler v. Danziger

231 P.2d 894, 104 Cal. App. 2d 490, 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1647

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 29, 1951

DocketCiv. 18210

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 231 P.2d 894 (Peebler v. Danziger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peebler v. Danziger, 231 P.2d 894, 104 Cal. App. 2d 490, 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1647 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

WILSON, J.

Plaintiffs obtained a money judgment against defendants, including defendant Hutchinson. An execution was issued and levied upon the latter’s tools and equipment consisting of three lawn mowers—one hand mower, a circular power mower, and a Gravely tractor mower—an iron bar, shovels, spades, picks and adze, and a grave lowering device. Defendant filed with the sheriff a claim that the property under levy consisted of “The tools or implements of a me *491 chanic or artisan, necessary to carry on his trade,” and were exempt from execution as provided in section 690.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon a hearing before the court for the determination of the validity of the claim of exemption the court granted the claim and plaintiffs have appealed from the order.

Defendant testified that he is sexton at Graeeland Cemetery and has no other business or occupation; that he is not employed by anyone other than himself; that his duties are to water and mow the lawn, open, close and fill in the graves and remove the extra dirt therefrom; to place pipes for flowers, and to make and furnish redwood boxes and place them in the graves. For such work it is necessary for him to have the use of all the tools and implements upon which the writ of execution was levied.

The term “tools and implements” includes any implement needed and used for the purpose of carrying on one’s trade or business. (In re McManus, 87 Cal. 292, 294 [25 P. 413, 22 Am.St.Rep. 250, 10 L.R.A. 567]; In re Robb, 99 Cal. 202, 203 [33 P. 890, 37 Am.St.Rep. 48].)

Order affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and McComb, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WILSON, J.

Plaintiffs obtained a money judgment against defendants, including defendant Hutchinson. An execution was issued and levied upon the latter’s tools and equipment consisting of three lawn mowers—one hand mower, a circular power mower, and a Gravely tractor mower—an iron bar, shovels, spades, picks and adze, and a grave lowering device. Defendant filed with the sheriff a claim that the property under levy consisted of “The tools or implements of a me *491 chanic or artisan, necessary to carry on his trade,” and were exempt from execution as provided in section 690.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon a hearing before the court for the determination of the validity of the claim of exemption the court granted the claim and plaintiffs have appealed from the order.

Defendant testified that he is sexton at Graeeland Cemetery and has no other business or occupation; that he is not employed by anyone other than himself; that his duties are to water and mow the lawn, open, close and fill in the graves and remove the extra dirt therefrom; to place pipes for flowers, and to make and furnish redwood boxes and place them in the graves. For such work it is necessary for him to have the use of all the tools and implements upon which the writ of execution was levied.

The term “tools and implements” includes any implement needed and used for the purpose of carrying on one’s trade or business. (In re McManus, 87 Cal. 292, 294 [25 P. 413, 22 Am.St.Rep. 250, 10 L.R.A. 567]; In re Robb, 99 Cal. 202, 203 [33 P. 890, 37 Am.St.Rep. 48].)

Order affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and McComb, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 P.2d 894, 104 Cal. App. 2d 490, 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peebler-v-danziger-calctapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack