California Table Grape Com. v. Dispoto

• Decision Date: 13 January 1971
• Citation: 14 Cal.App.3d 314,92 Cal.Rptr. 268
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE COMMISSION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Bruno DISPOTO, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 1408.

Page 268

92 Cal.Rptr. 268

14 Cal.App.3d 314

The CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE COMMISSION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Bruno DISPOTO, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 1408.

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

Jan. 13, 1971.

[14 Cal.App.3d 315] Granger & Moe and George W. Granger, Delano, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch and Evelle J. Younger, Attys. Gen., Sacramento, Sanford N. Grustin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Walter E. Wunderlich, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

OPINION

STONE, Presiding Justice.

Respondent, California Table Grape Commission, obtained a judgment against appellant for a total sum of $11,256.17, found to be due as assessments on table grapes shipped by him pursuant to an assessment order issued by respondent. Appellant appealed from the judgment and posted an appeal bond for the amount found to be due and owing. However, the judgment also provided:

'IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendant Bruno Dispoto, dba Bruno Dispoto Company, his agents, employees, assistants, representatives, officers, or any other person or persons acting under his orders or in concert with him are hereby enjoined from the further shipping of California table grapes until that portion of this judgment which is for money has been paid in full.'

Respondent contends the order enjoining appellant from shipping California table grapes until the judgment is paid in full is not stayed pending appeal, even though a bond has been posted for the amount of the money judgment. Respondent sought enforcement of the order, and appellant petitioned this court for a writ of supersedeas to suspend the operation of the injunction pending outcome of the appeal.

Preliminarily, we note that in hearing this petition for a writ of supersedeas we are not deciding the merits of the case.

It is apparent from the face of the order that the purpose of the injunction against shipping grapes is not to protect the health of consumers, nor to prevent the sale of an inferior product. Clearly, the injunction is ancillary to the money judgment and is to be effective only 'until that portion of this judgment which is for money has been paid in full.' The appeal bond posted by appellant suspends the requirement of payment of the money part of the judgment pending the appeal; logically it should follow that the bond also suspends the operation of the ancillary injunction designed to enforce payment of the money judgment. Certainly respondent...