Julian v. Schwartz

[281]

THE COURT.

Applications for writs of

supersedeas.

A similar application was made by the appellants L. V. Red-field, E. E. Poster and H. A. Penn, and denied on July 11, 1934, without prejudice, as being premature.

(Julian

v.

Schwartz,

1 Cal. (2d) 269 [34 Pac. (2d) 487].) On July 23, 1934, the court made the special order after final judgment, as anticipated prior to the first application, directing the trustees to pay impounded moneys in stated amounts to the parties and to surrender possession of oil well property to certain of them as their interests appeared and were settled by the judgment from which appeals have been taken. -The interests so settled were the proportionate interests of the parties in and to the oil properties involved and the proceeds from the production thereof. Redfield, Poster and Penn on their own behalf and as managing agents and trustees for holders of certain participating oil agreements and equitable owners of interests in production, also appealed from certain portions of the special order after judgment, and W. A. Schwartz appealed from the remaining portions thereof. Redfield, Poster and Penn now renew their application for a writ of

supersedeas

and Schwartz has applied for a like stay as to the items in the order to which he takes exception.

In its order directing the payment of money the - trial court provided that in the event an appeal be taken from the order or any part thereof by any party, the order might be stayed by any such appellant by furnishing a bond in double the amount directed to be paid by the particular portions of the order appealed from; and that the portion of the order directing the delivery of possession might be stayed by any appellant by furnishing a bond in an amount to be fixed by the court.

The portions of the order requiring payment and from which Redfield, Poster and Penn have appealed, require the payment of about $200,000. The stay bond required by the order would therefore be approximately $400,000, an amount which the appellants contend is exorbitant and beyond their ability to furnish, and that in any event no stay bond should be required. It is pointed out that the order requires the payment of $149,852.13 to BarnhartMorrow, Consolidated, a corporation controlled and almost