*1 Dist., No. 16393. Second Div. Two. BROWN, Respondent, CARL W. TROPHY-CRAFT (a Corporation), Appellant. COMPANY George for Boshae Respondent. & Borah

Borah. Respondent has to dis- moved the MOORE, P. court appealed the orders ground that herein miss Simultaneously, appellant' presents appealable. are not “staying proceedings all its pend- books defendant’s taking account of including of an appeal.” final determination ing the dismissal the motion The bases of ap reviewed on interlocutory it can be and that is judgment which judgment; that a after but refers the fixes the an the statement of as judicial purpose such some cause appealable. Ap and is not is not account determining whether rule for correct contends pellant ascertain first is to designated equity If decree such decree. nature of hearing for certain a further “interlocutory” yet directs purposes, may adjudication it complete be an so final and as to constitute it a final appeal- reference to its ability. If it complete is so that it leaves no issue for future except compliance consideration with its terms then it is final regard designation given to the *2 judicial if action is “to a final determina rights tion of the parties, interlocutory.” of the the decree is (Bakewell Bakewell, 224, 975]; [130 Gunder Gunder, ; P. Hollar v. Prod Saline ucts, Inc., 3 Cal.2d Bessinger In Grotz, 52 Cal.App.2d 379, 380 66], 127 P.2d the above approved, rule was the was dismissed the because decreed that plaintiff have re leave to deem, appointed referee, a and directed him “to take ... accounting of by all sums received her . . . from the use and occupation . . . that when such is and has been rendered and received and settled that a final be entered, fixing, in findings accordance with the and conclu herein, of law the sions sum for which property may said be redeemed. . .” In findings that case the did not state the by amount received the defendant under the contract or that the defendant had received no other sums for use and occu pation land, leaving yet of the by matters to be determined accounting required the referee whose approval. the court’s judicial destroyed Such finality the decree. leading authority holding that a for an ac- counting is not final Gunder Cal. 559 P. cancelling conveyances After certain judg- as void the

ment full, complete render a and true defendant moneys account to a referee of all by and bonds received the plaintiff during defendant marriage, their and of all proceeds bonds, from the money, sale of profits proceeds operation derived from the Works; the.Elsinore Gas that full, he render a complete and true account of the true condi- tion of the and accounts business of Works; the Elsinore Gas rendition of said account of said referee and the court’s plaintiff given thereof judg- shall be ment. Much action was to be taken after the inter- locutory decree in In Pomper Superior Court, that ease. general rule was declared to be fixing that where decree is made and a master or subordi- parties referring and the case to judicial purpose,

nate tribunal for a such as statement entered, the upon which a further decree is to be an account merely has because it final; decree is not it is not if in the case. It is not final settled the basic issue involved expressly left for future determination the it has rents, issues, profits and parties with relation to the such by complaint. raised Under was one of issues the whole is still before the court circumstance case adjudication. Bessinger, similar those

The instant be taken Pomper and eases in that the account to “ , dealings and transactions the referee is 1 . . of all the . . . agreement plaintiff and defendant respect to the between accounting to report . . . he shall Procedure, Moreover, of Civil this court.” section Code excepted to findings may that the of the referee be provides if and reviewed like manner as made finding reported report facts, “the when the reference is to findings special Thus before the has the effect of a verdict.” they subject exceptions bind the of the referee *3 report of and to the court. The obviously the court permit to not reject Therefore, it. the instant decree is approve Court, v. (Pomper Superior supra; v. final. ; Middleton supra; P.2d Finney, P.2d 78 A.L.R. 355, 127 Bessinger Grotz, Cal.App.2d 379, 66].) in accordance Appellant contends that the is final Zappettini Buckles, in 167 Cal. 27 with the rule stated in v. Dun But neither that case nor Clark nam, relies, did decree involve no accounting, and there was therefore a reference for an part of the court adjudicate finally parties. These cases Supe carefully analyzed Security-First National Bank v. Court, Cal.App. 683, rior appeal from a final

Since lies supersedeas present a case fails to where since except questions can come before the trial court no carry effect, such as are into supersedeas. petitioner is not at this time entitled to a writ of (Bakewell Bakewell, application supersedeas is denied prejudice.

appeal is dismissed Wilson, J., concurred. purported

McCOMB, I concurin the Since the opinion. ap- order, nonappealable from a a dismissal does not constitute an affirmance my application and in opinion order the trial court appeal dis- a writ of be denied and the should missed.

Appellant’s petition hearing by Supreme Court was denied 1948. June No. Third 7500. Dist. CLYDE, Respondent, CLYDE,

CLEO V.M.