This is an application for a writ of supersedeas to stay the operation of a temporary injunction pending the determination of the defendant’s appeal.

It appears from the record that acting pursuant to sections 9563-9566 of the Business and Professions Code (Stats. 1945, pp. 2847-8) the defendant and appellant State Board of Dry Cleaners established a minimum price scale for the services to be charged by cleaning establishments operating in Alameda County, effective on and after January 14, 1948. The plaintiff, which operates a dry cleaning plant in Alameda County, on February 9, 1948 filed its complaint seeking to enjoin the enforcement of this schedule of prices and the order granting a temporary injunction was made and entered on May 18.

That this court has the power to stay the operation of a prohibitory injunction is settled by Food & Grocery Bureau v. Garfield, 18 Cal.2d 174, 177 [ 114 P.2d 579 ], That case presented the converse of this. There an injunction had been issued by the trial court restraining the defendant from issuing trading stamps to its customers on the ground that the enjoined practices violated the Unfair Practices Act. The court issued the writ of supersedeas. At pages 177-178 the court said:

In that case the trial court had enjoined the defendant from continuing to follow a long established business practice. The burden was on the merchant to demonstrate his right to supersedeas so that he might continue this established practice pending the appeal. In the passage quoted the court held that this burden had been met. In the case before us the effect of the injunction is to permit the respondent to continue its established. business practices and the burden is on the appellant to show that supersedeas should issue, the effect of which would be to force respondent to discontinue its established business practices under criminal penalties which may amount to a maximum of $200 per day. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 9590-9591.) Under the reasoning of the cited case we cannot hold that this burden has been met.

The parties devote much space to an argument of the appeal on its merits. That plaintiff’s position is not frivolous is attested by such cases as People v. Osborne, 17 Cal.App.2d Supp. 771 [ 59 P.2d 1083 ]; In re Kazas, 22 Cal.App.2d 161 [ 70 P.2d 962 ]; In re Landowitz, 22 Cal.App.2d 733 [ 71 P.2d 334 ] ; and In re Herrick, 25 Cal.App.2d 751 [ 77 P.2d 262 ]. Further than this we should not inquire into the merits on this proceeding. The Supreme Court said in Food & Grocery Bureau v. Garfield, supra, at page 178 :

The petition for writ of supersedeas is denied and the alternative writ discharged.

Nourse, P. J., and Goodell, J., concurred.