*1 145 GENERAL EXPLORATION

COMPANY, Appellant,

v. DAVID, Appellee. P.

No. 17483. Texas, Appeals

Court of Civil of (1st Dist.).

Houston 23,

Aug. 1979. 18,

Rehearing Denied Oct. 1979. Boren,

Locke, Purnell, Neely, Laney & Harrison, III, Houser, Barbara J. Dal- Orrin las, appellant. for

Sewell, Sewell, Riggs, Junell & Ben G. Meadows, Houston, appellee. Robert E. for WALLACE, Before and WAR- EVANS REN, JJ.

WALLACE, Justice. appeal summary judg-

This is an from a on a ment for the defendant in a suit based The sole issue is judgment. California judgment appeal on in whether a California state, bond, is supersedeas that without a in Texas. entitled to full faith and credit GEX, judgment secured in Appellant, against appellee David. The California delivery the judgment money was for and of of shares of common stock of certificates ap- judgment The California was GEX. only appeal bond and that is pealed on cost pending. still GEX filed suit in Texas and plead party presented California law. Each summary judgment. The trial a motion for motion, denying full granted court David’s judgment. faith and credit to the California *2 146 IV, 1, cases

Article Section of the United those the California court held that provides judgment was final for Constitution that full faith the enforcement States complied if had not purposes, in to the the defendant given and credit shall be each state of seq. with Sec. 917.1 et the California acts, judicial public proceedings records and In of Civil Procedure. Califor Code those every of other state. The law of California the denying admissibility nia cases the of determining finality in the governs validity, judgment rights of the original as evidence judgment. v. and effect of their Harris therein, parties the to the subse declared Harris, (C.C.A. 403 445 Houston S.W.2d [1st suits from those in the quent were different Dist.], 1966, e.). writ ref. n. r. suits, original judgments the original or judgment To if the determine California as prove plaintiff's were used a basis to the credit, is entitled and must to full faith we against cause of action the defendant. first whether our case is one to determine independent actions based Such suits are enforce judgment the California rather original the their finali upon judgment and than an that independent action based on 1049 ty by is Civ. controlled Sec. Cal.Code judgment. independent action based on An apparently This was rec Proc. distinction judgment the California would be con- Moody v. ognized by the Texas courts in Civ.Proc., 1049, by trolled Cal.Code Section Austin, State, (C.C.A. 1975), 520 452 S.W.2d provides: which (Tex.1977); 958 affirmed 547 S.W.2d judgment A long is not final as the so Vecchiotti, v. 529 603 Schwartz S.W.2d pending, action in which it is is rendered 1975, (C.C.A. writ ref. n. Houston [1st Dist.] and an pending action is deemed to be e.); East Refi Thompson r. and v. Texas until its or appeal final determination on Co., (C.C.A. 1936, ning 97 S.W.2d 528 Austin until appeal passed. the time for has writ). no If this is to an action enforce the California case, attempting is to this GEX In judgment by it is controlled 917.1 Sections judgment against enforce the California and 917.2 of Cal.Code Civ.Proc. Section David, a defendant in that suit. The Cali provides: 917.1 law in its civil fornia as set out code of perfecting “The of an shall not appeal option—he gave an could procedure David stay judgment enforcement of the or or- post supersedeas undertaking a or bond judgment—or in he judgment pending appeal der the trial court if the or that of enforcing could take chances on GEX order is or his money payment for directs the not his judgment. the He chose to exercise of money . . . unless an undertak- stay to under the laws of right execution ing given judg- is on condition that if the California, judg of but to the the state let or ment order ... . is affirmed pur ment become final for enforcement the to the party pay pay ordered shall poses. judgment amount of the or order.” trial re- judgment The the court is of import except is of similar Section 917.2 and is with in- versed the case remanded judgment it di- applies that to a or order appellant judgment structions to enter for personal in- recting delivery property, of judgment. for the amount of the California cluding documents. Rehearing On for Motion cases suits distinguish The California we rehearing motion conclude that On for judgment independent to enforce a from of original fully dispose our did not opinion upon although actions a judgment, based is to opinion this matter. That amended categorized are they by not so the courts. the of the trial court is judgment show that judgments The cases to enforce are those with and case is remanded reversed the wherein the in the enforcement defendant judgment appellant to for instruction enter suit, original suit was a in the all defendant judgment for the amount of the California issues of parties disposed between the were the stock delivery appellant for to of and suit, original sought nothing in the and was appellee. to appellant of issued certificates except carrying in the suit the enforcement judgment. rehearing out of the In each of is overruled. original Motion for