After a further consideration of the questions involved in this proceeding, we find ourselves in accord with the conclusions reached by the District Court of Appeal in its opinion rendered therein and written by Mr. Presiding Justice Conrey. We have therefore incorporated the major portion of said opinion in our opinion, indicating the same by quotation marks, and have followed it with certain observations of our own. The complete opinion and decision of the court herein is as follows:

As to the ultimate right of the city of Los Angeles to abandon said condemnation proceedings either before or after the final decree of condemnation, we express no opinion, as we do not consider that question is before us in this proceeding, and we expressly refrain from expressing any opinion relative thereto.

It has been suggested, as justification for the failure of plaintiff to deposit said money, that if it does make the deposit, the defendants will have a right to withdraw the money, and that their appeal from the judgment will be dis missed on the ground that it has become a “moot case”. There is no merit in this suggestion. The deposit of money in court was made in compliance with the provisions of section 14 of article I of the Constitution. It is not subject to withdrawal either by the plaintiff or defendant in the condemnation proceeding until after the entry of the final decree of condemnation, and then only by order of the court in which it is deposited. The final decree of condemnation can be made only after the pending appeal of the. plaintiff in the condemnation case is disposed of. Plaintiff therein is, therefore, not prejudiced in any manner in its right of appeal therein, nor does any question become moot by reason of its compliance with said order of January 30, 1933. As to the status of money deposited in court under said section of the Constitution, see Marblehead Land Co. v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. App. 644, 652 [ 213 Pac. 718 ], where the court in discussion of that question said: “It is to be observed that, as a prerequisite to the making of an order for possession and use, the Constitution provides that the plaintiffs in a condemnation suit shall give ‘such security in the way of money deposits as the court . . . may direct, and in such amounts as the court may determine to be reasonably adequate to secure to the owner . . . immediate payment of just compensation ... as soon as the same can be ascertained according to law.’ It is certain that, when such money deposits are made and the consequent order for possession and use follows, the court making the order has exclusive control of the money deposited. The cash is to be deposited merely as security for the immediate payment of compensation when the amount of compensation is ascertained. For the time being neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has any right to the possession of it and neither may exercise any control over it. If the compensation is not paid by the plaintiff to the defendant immediately, or perhaps within a reasonable time, after the amount to be paid is fully ascertained, then the court must make some order transmitting the money deposited from security into payment. That is, the cash must by appropriate order be turned over to the defendant. If the compensation be promptly paid by the plaintiff, then the court perforce must order the cash to be returned to the plaintiff. ’.’ The rule is entirely different where the plaintiff in a condemnation pro ceeding attempts to act under section 1254 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in pursuance of the terms of that section deposits money in court in order to secure possession of the property sought to be condemned. Under said section of the code, as expressly provided therein, the money deposited in court must under order of court be paid to the defendant upon his filing a satisfaction of the judgment. This difference between the provisions of the section of the Constitution and those of the code section renders the case of Mt. Shasta Power Corp. v. Dennis, 66 Cal. App. 186 [ 225 Pac. 877 ], relied upon by the respondents, readily distinguishable from the instant case. In that case the condemnor, a public service corporation, in pursuance of section 1254 of the Code of Civil Procedure, deposited in court the full amount of the judgment rendered against it in order that it might take possession of the property involved in said action. At the same time it attempted to appeal from said judgment. The court very properly held that as it had paid and satisfied the judgment in full, no appeal would lie therefrom and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

In our opinion it is the present duty of the city of Los Angeles to deposit in court the amount of the required security, and it is the present duty of the respondent court to enforce its order in the premises.

Let the peremptory writ issue.