
    AYLESWORTH v. DEAN.
    No. 11,327;
    August 28, 1886.
    12 Pac. 241.
    'An Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors, That is Shown not to Include All of the debtor’s property, will be held void, unless it is further shown that the omitted property is exempt from execution.
    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 ap-
    
      peals, assigning as error the insufficiency of such finding to sustain the judgment.
    A. L. Shinn, E. T. Hogan and W. W. Kellogg for defendant and appellant; R H. F. Yariel and M. Ball for plaintiff and respondent.
   By 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.  