Lierly v. McEwen

PRESTON, J.

Motion to dismiss appeal. This action involves the construction of a contract. It is to determine

[646]

thereunder the respective rights of the parties to oil produced from certain properties and for royalties therefrom.

The cause was tried and judgment entered on February I, 1924, but upon appeal, on December 21, 1927, it was reversed, with direction that judgment be entered in accord with the opinion filed

(Lierly

v.

McEwen,

87 Cal. App. 711 [262 Pac. 457]). Apparently this was not done, but a different judgment was entered. Thereafter a proceeding in

mandamus

was filed in the District Court of Appeal, which heard the appeal, to compel the entry of the judgment ordered. On April 2, 1929, upon the hearing a peremptory writ was ordered and duly issued

(Lamb

v.

Owen,

98 Cal. App. 106 [276 Pac. 628]). On June 20, 1929, the former judgment was set aside and a new judgment was entered in said cause, which fully and accurately met the demands of said writ. From this last judgment appellants now prosecute an appeal supported alone by the judgment-roll in the action.

It is not contended that the court did not fully and accurately follow the writ of mandate. Under such a situation no issues can be left for further litigation.

(Heinlen

v.

Beans,

73 Cal. 240 [14 Pac. 855];

Shank

v.

Blackburn,