,    ..\    .^  tive  findings  were  filed  and  served,
be  presumed  on  appeal  that  it  was

considered    by    the    jury    only    for  ^^'  California   Central    Creameries

that  purpose;  De  Bock  v,  De  Bock,  ^o.  v.  Crescent  City  L.  W.  &  Power
29  Cal.  App.  Dec.  833,  184  Pac.  890.      ^o.,  30  Cal.  App.  619,  159  Pac.  209.
14.  Doty  V.  Jenkins,  142  Cal.  497,        ^^^'  ^«"*^^    ^'    ^«°**>"'    ^22    Cal.
77    Pae.    1104    (where    the    findings      ^^^'  ^^  ^*^-  '^^^'

are    filed    the    next    day    after    the  17.  Haight    v.    Haight,    151    Cal.
close    of    the    evidence,    it    will    be  90,  90   Pac.   197;   Adler   v.   Sawyer,

presumed    that    the    court    regularly  40   Cal.  App.  778,  181  Pac.  817.
adjourned  until  that  time);   Gordon  18.  E.   W.    McLellan   Co.   v.   East

Y.    Donahue,    79    Cal.    501,    21    Pac.  San  Mateo  Land  Co.,  166  Cal.  736,

871


§511


Appeal  and  Ebbob.
2  CaL  Jur.
them.^*  All  the  findings  are  to  be  read  together,  and
must  be  reconciled  to  prevent  any  conflict  upon  material
points,  if  such  reconciliation  is  possible.*^  In  reviewing
the  sufficiency  of  the  findings  to  support  the  judgment,^
regard  will  be  had  to  the  ultimate  facts  found,  and  not
to  mere  probative  facts,  which  are  not  shown  by  the  find-
ings to  be  the  only  faqts  proved,  and  from  whidi  alone
the  court  finds  the  ultimate  facts.  In  the  absence  of
such  showing,  the  mere  circumstance  that  some  of  the
probative  facts  are  inconsistent  with  the  ultimate  facts


137  Pac.  1145;  Burr  t.  Maelay
Rancho  Water  Co.,  160  Gal.  268,
116  Pac.  715;  Heaton-Hobson  Abso-
ciated  Law  Offices  ▼.  Arper,  145
Cal.  282,  78  Pac.  721;  Paine  v.  San
Bernardino  Valley  Traction  Co.,  143
Cal.  654,  77  Pac.  659;  Krasky  ▼.
