McCarthy

.Ejectment. Judgment for plaintiff.. Appeal from judgment on judgment-roll.

Appellant claims that the findings do not support the-judgment, because: 1. The finding (No. 16) that defendant “ ousted the plaintiff” is a conclusion of law, in that it does not find the facts constituting the ouster; 2. That there is no finding “ that plaintiff, at the time of commencing the suit, was entitled to the possession” of the demanded premises.

1. In the case of Smith v. Mohn, 87 Cal. 497 , it was said: “ They [findings] should be statements of the ultimate facts, and not of the probative facts. (Mathews v. Kinsell, 41 Cal. 512 .)”

In Hihn v. Peck, 30 Cal. 286 , the court said: “It has been uniformly held that it is not necessary for the court in its findings to present the results of last analysis, but, on the contrary, that it would be sufficient if the court found the facts entering as terms into the legal proposition upon which the prevailing party based his right of recovery. The ‘ facts’ which the court is to find, and the ‘ facts’ which a pleader is to state, lie, ac *18 cording to the decisions in this state, in the same plane —that is, in both connections, facts are to be stated…