With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Fla. 190, 37 So. 523, 525 (1904). As the supreme court has explained: A supersedeas has the effect to suspend all further proceedings in relation to the judgment, but it does not, like a reversal, annul it. Being preventive in its effect, it does not undo or set aside what the trial court has adjudicated, but simply stays further proceedings in relation to the judgment appealed from until the appellate court acts upon the decision of the lower court. Bacon v. Green, 36 Fla. 313, 18 So. 866, 869 (1894). Given the supreme court’s characterization of the effect of a supersedeas, the proper remedy in this case was to stay the garnishment proceeding once the superse-deas went into effect on June 13. See Fla. Steel Corp. v. A.G. Spanos Enters., Inc., 332 So.2d 663, 664-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (<HOLDING>); see also GEICO Fin. Servs. v. Kramer, 575

A: holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment
B: recognizing that the trial court is not precluded from enforcing its judgment even though an appeal is pending
C: holding that where judgment has been superseded pending appeal a garnishment proceeding directed at that judgment should be stayed and not dissolved
D: holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment
C.