Petitioner seeks mandamus relief from this court to compel the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division, and the Honorable Peirson M. Hall, as Judge of such court, to comply with the mandate of this court, providing:

A. The court’s opinion stated, inter alia:

The provision of the opinion that the district court is to proceed “on its present record” became a part of the mandate. United States v. Iriarte, 1 Cir., 166 F.2d 800 , certiorari denied 335 U.S. 816 , 69 S.Ct. 36 , 93 L.Ed. 371 . That is to say to proceed upon a complaint which we held to “fail to allege any act of the Bank which proximately caused any damage to Mr. Londono” and hence obviously to enter a judgment in favor of the Bank.

The answer to the petition admits that instead of so proceeding on its then present record, the court has granted a motion of Londono to file an amended complaint. In so doing the court violated the plain provisions of our mandate.

B. With respect to our mandate that the petitioning bank recover its costs on appeal and “have execution therefor,” the answer of Londono admits that the district court granted a motion of Londono to stay the execution and levy thereof. For the reasons stated in our opinion in Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank v. Londono (Dulien Steel Products, Inc. v. Londono), 9 Cir., 204 F.2d 377 , the court disobeyed our mandate in so staying the execution and levy.

If within ten days herefrom there be filed with the clerk a certified copy of the district court’s order setting aside its order granting Londono’s motion to file an amended complaint and its order granting his motion to stay the levy of execution of costs and further ordering such execution as prayed for in the petition, the petition will be denied. Otherwise, the petition for a writ of mandamus is ordered granted.