TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Peebler v. Danziger

BYRON PEEBLER Et Al., Appellants, v. J. M. DANZIGER Et Al., Respondents

Peebler v. Danziger, 231 P.2d 894 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 29, 1951
Docket
No. Civ. 18210
Judges
Wilson
Citations
231 P.2d 894104 Cal. App. 2d 4901951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1647

Opinion — Wilson

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1955: 11959: 11961: 11992: 12011: 12024: 119552026peak 1955 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Twining v. Taylor339 P.2d 646 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
  2. Lopp v. Lopp198 Cal. App. 2d 474 (1961)
  3. Kono v. Meeker196 Cal. App. 4th 81 (2011)
  4. In re Sanderson134 F. Supp. 484 (N.D. Cal. 1955)
  5. C.F. Nielsen, Inc. v. Stern11 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 22 (1992)
  6. Satinder SinghNo. 23-22540 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2024)

Most recent

  1. Satinder SinghNo. 23-22540 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2024)
  2. Kono v. Meeker196 Cal. App. 4th 81 (2011)
  3. C.F. Nielsen, Inc. v. Stern11 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 22 (1992)
  4. Lopp v. Lopp198 Cal. App. 2d 474 (1961)
  5. Twining v. Taylor339 P.2d 646 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
  6. In re Sanderson134 F. Supp. 484 (N.D. Cal. 1955)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re Estate of McManus, 10 L.R.A. 567 (Cal. 1890) 26
In re Robb, 33 P. 890 (Cal. 1893) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list