three hundred dollars.-People v. Mier, 24 Cal. 61. [p] If action is brought under provisions of act of May 12, 1862, it is a case in equity, and the district court has jurisdiction, although the amount claimed is less than three hundred dollars.-People v. Mier, 24 Cal. 61. [q] District courts, by article 6, section 6 of the constitution, have "original jurisdiction in all cases in equity," and an act of the legislature depriving them of that jurisdiction or transferring it to any other court is unconstitutional and void.-Willis v. Farley, 24 Cal. 490. [r] When, in actions to recover taxes, the amount sued for is less than three hundred dollars, and there is no prayer for the foreclosure of the tax lien, order of sale, etc., the district courts have no jurisdiction.-Bell v. Crippen, 28 Cal. 327. [s] District courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate regardless of the amount involved in the action. (Per Sawyer, J., Curry, C. J., concurring.)-Cariaga v. Dryden, 30 Cal. 244. [t] District courts have jurisdiction of actions to recover one-half value of partition fence, although the amount sought to be recovered is less than three hundred dollars. Such actions involve the title of the parties to their respective lands.-Holman v. Taylor, 31 Cal. 338. [u] Section 6 of article 6 of the constitution gives the district court jurisdiction of all actions in which the title or possession of real property is an issuable fact in the case, upon which the plaintiff relies for a recovery, or the defendant for a defense. It is not necessary that the title or possession be put in issue, but one or the other must be an issuable fact, necessary to be averred in the pleadings.Holman v. Taylor, 31 Cal. 338. [v] District courts have jurisdiction of all actions to recover damages for trespass upon lands, regardless of the amount of damages claimed.-Holman v. Taylor, 31 Cal. 338. [w] Under Constitution, article 6, section 6, as amended by act of 1862, the district courts have no jurisdiction in probate matters, as the amendment omits all reference to issues joined in probate courts, while the section prior to the amendment conferred unlimited jurisdiction in all issues of fact found in probate matters.-Bowen, In re, 34 Cal. 682. [x] District courts in this state, by virtue of their organization and common-law powers, have full authority, except when limited by the constitution or Practice Act, to pronounce such judgment as the exigency of each case shall require.-Stewart v. Levy, 36 Cal. 159. [y] It is the intention of the constitution to give exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts in actions of trespass in those cases only in which the right to the possession of land is involved.-Pollock v. Cummings, 38 Cal. 683. [z] District courts have jurisdiction of actions for collection of delinquent taxes, when the tax amounts to more than three hundred dollars, and also, regardless of amount, when it is sought to enforce the lien of the tax.People v. Olvera, 43 Cal. 492. [aa] When jurisdiction is limited to a county, "district" is synonymous with county. McCauley v. Fulton, 44 Cal. 356. [bb] District courts have jurisdiction to make all necessary orders respecting process issued, or to be issued, on their judgments. Clark v. Sawyer, 48 Cal. 133. [ce] District courts have jurisdiction of actions to recover value for goods sold for use of vessel on high seas.-Crawford v. Roberts, 50 Cal. 235. [da] Code, section 564, subdivision 6, is but declaratory of the equity jurisdiction conferred upon the district courts by the former constitution, in giving them jurisdiction of "all cases in equity," and includes only the suits in which it has been the usage of courts of equity to appoint a receiver.-Bateman v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 285. [a] The supreme court alone has a revisory jurisdiction, by way of appeal, over judgments of courts of first instance; and, in respect to such judgments, district courts are not courts of review, and have no jurisdiction to examine into their regularity or validity, unless, perhaps, in case of a judgment fraudulently rendered.-Belt v. Davis, 1 Cal. 135. [b] Constitution article 6, section 6, confers on the district courts original jurisdiction in cases where the amount in dispute exceeds two hundred dollars. The fourth section of, the same article gives appellate powers to the supreme court, and the ninth section permits the legislature to give to county courts original or appellate jurisdiction in all cases, or in cases arising in justice's courts. Held, that an act providing for appeals to the district court is unconstitutional.-People Peralta, 3 Cal. 379; Caulfield v. Hudson, 3 Cal. 389. V. [c] No appellate power belongs to the district court.-Hernandes v. Simon, 3 Cal. 464. [d] District courts have no appellate jurisdiction. Reed v. McCormick, 4 Cal. 342. [e] The sixth section of article 6 of the constitution, which provides that in all issues of fact joined in the probate courts the jurisdiction of the district courts shall be unlimited, does not give the district court appellate jurisdiction from the probate courts, and acts conferring it are void.-Reed v. MeCormick, 4 Cal. 342. [f] The supervisors of a county are a quasi political corporation, and as such the district courts of this state, by virtue of their general jurisdiction as superior courts, have a supervisory power and control over their proceedings, to the exercise of which appellate power is not necessary.-People ex rel. Church v. Hester, 6 Cal. 679. [g] There is no relation of inferiority in the constitution or powers of the probate court as [a] Court of first instance had jurisdiction of divorce cases within sphere of its ordinary jurisdiction, when marriage was not a sacrament but a civil contract.-Harman v. Harman, 1 Cal. 215. [b] Under Mexican law, courts of first instance had jurisdiction of divorce, in case of marriage without sanction of the church.Harman v. Harman, 1 Cal. 215. [c] Court of first instance had jurisdiction of estates of deceased persons prior to probate act.-Ryder v. Cohn, 37 Cal. 69. § 147. Municipal Court of San Francisco. [a] The San Francisco municipal court is a court of inferior jurisdiction, within Constitution, article 6 section 1, as amended in 1862. Stratman, Ex parte, 39 Cal. 517. [b] The municipal criminal court of San Francisco, established by act of the legislature March 31, 1870, is a constitutional court. Stratman, Ex parte, 39 Cal. 517, affirmed on this point.-People v. Nyland, 41 Cal. 129. [c] The city criminal court of the city and county of San Francisco is a court of record, because it has a clerk and bailiff, and has power to fine and imprison, although it has no seal. Thistleton, Ex parte, 52 Cal. 220. § 148. Police Court. [a] In an action brought in a police court to recover a license tax for the transaction of business, if the answer denies the legality of the tax, the police court cannot try the cause, but must transfer it to the district court.-City of Santa Barbara v. Stearns, 51 Cal. 499. [b] Police judge's court of city and county of San Francisco is court within meaning of section 1388 of the Penal Code, and may exercise jurisdiction granted by that section. Boys and Girls' Aid Society v. Reis, 71 Cal. 627, 12 Pac. 796. [c] Judges of the police court are not named in the County Government Act of 1893, either as county or township officers, and no provision is found therein relative to their duties or term of office. That court has its existence by virtue of section 1 of article 6 of the constitution, authorizing the legislature to establish inferior courts in any incorporated city, town, or city and county, and the act of 1893, page 9, establishing it in the city and county of San Francisco. Their term of office is fixed at two years, and their successors are also to be elected at the general election to be held in November, 1896.—Kahn v. Sutro, 114 Cal. 316, 46 Pac. 87. [d] Police court of Sacramento was abolished by adoption of freeholders' charter in 1894. Sparks, Ex parte, 120 Cal, 397, 52 Pac. 715. [e] Police court of Los Angeles was lawfully organized under act of March 18, 1885. Mitchell, In re, 120 Cal. 385, 52 Pac. 799. § 149. Sessions Court. [a] Court of sessions is vested with power of taxation and appropriation for county purposes.-Thompson v. Rowe, 2 Cal. 68. [b] Under the act of 1851 the court of sessions was authorized to appropriate one-half of the current revenue to the current expenses to the exclusion of prior indebtedness. Thompson v. Rowe, 2 Cal. 68. [c] Court of sessions must be composed of three persons: the county judge and two associate justices.-People v. Ah Chung, 5 Cal. § 157. Adoption of Practice of State Courts. [a] Statute of the several states, regulating remedies by means of judicial proceedings, are to be understood as intended to apply only to proceedings in the courts of the particular state where adopted, unless it clearly appears that they were intended to have a wider scope.-Majors v. Cowell, 51 Cal. 478. [b] A statute authorizing the filing of a notice of lis pendens, and declaring its effect, should be construed as applying only to suitors in state courts.-Majors v. Cowell, 51 Cal. 478. FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES: See 5 C. C. A. 594, 27 C. C. A. 392, notes. § 158. Review of Decisions of State Courts. [a] Neither a writ of error nor appeal lies to take a case from a state court to the supreme court of the United States.-Johnson v. Gordon, 4 Cal. 368. [b] Appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court of the United States, conferred by the second section of article 3 of the constitution, does not extend to the state courts, but is confined to the inferior courts mentioned in the preceding section. (Per Terry, C. J.) Ferris v. Coover, 11 Cal. 176. [c] There is no provision in the federal constitution from which a supervisory power over the state courts can be vested in the supreme court of the United States by any fair or legitimate implication or construction. (Per Terry, C. J.)-Ferris v. Coover, 11 Cal. 175. [d] A doctrine that the right of appeal from the decisions of the state courts to the United States supreme court is unlimited would permit writs of error in every case, whether civil or criminal, and would delay the whole machinery of justice in the courts of the state in every case, however destitute of any right to a writ of error.-Ferris v. Coover, 11 Cal. 175. [e] An action of ejectment, raising the question whether a grant made by the Mexican government passed title to the tract within the limits of the grant is not a case in which a writ of error lies under the judiciary act. Ferris v. Coover, 11 Cal. 175. [f] This court does not recognize an unlimited right of appeal from its decisions to the supreme court of the United States. The act of Congress of 1789 gives no such right. The appellate power of the supreme court in this respect is strictly limited to the cases given in the act. Like any other special authority, it is to be strictly pursued, and the record must show upon its face the facts which give the power. In a case falling within the provisions of section 25 this court acknowledges the right of appeal, but denies it in all other cases.-Ferris v. Coover, 11 Cal. 175. [g] It is only final judgments or decrees of the highest court of a state which can be re-examined upon a writ of error by the supreme court of the United States.-Hart v. Burnett, 20 Cal. 169. [h] Action of the presiding judge of a state court on the application for a citation upon a writ of error, directed to the justices of that court, issued by the clerk of the circuit court of the United States, is so far judicial in its nature that he may refuse to issue the citation when, in his judgment, it is clear that the writ of error will not lie for want of jurisdiction.-Hart v. Burnett, 20 Cal. 169. [i] A judgment of this court on appeal, reversing the judgment of a lower court in an action of ejectment, and remanding the cause for a new trial-following a decision finally determining certain questions of law arising in the case which will control the court below in its further action-is not a final judgment within the meaning of the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789.-Hart v. Burnett, 20 Cal. 169. [j] The true test as to whether a writ of error lies to the supreme court of the United States from the final judgment of a state court is to be arrived at, not from mere averment in the pleadings, but from the matter decided as developed in the whole record.-Greely v. Townsend, 25 Cal. 604. [k] The citation upon a writ of error, by which a cause is removed from the highest court of law or equity in a state to the supreme court of the United States, is not a writ of right, but the court may award it or not, according as it determines, from an examination of the record, that it is within that class of cases that may be thus removed.Greely v. Townsend, 25 Cal. 604. [1] A decision that the title of a claimant of land upon which he has settled, under the pre-emption laws of the United States, is superior to the title acquired by a subsequent location under a school land warrant and a patent issued under the laws of the state, does not necessarily involve the construction of any act of Congress, but only of the state law under which the location under the warrant was made; and in such a case a writ of error to the United States supreme court will not lie.-Athearn V. Poppe, 25 Cal. 631. [m] If a judgment is reversed by the supreme court of the United States, with directions to the court below to enter a decree in accordance with the opinion, and its mandate is filed in the lower court, the judgment is set aside, even if the lower court does not make any order conforming its judgment to that of the supreme court, and if the lower court denies a motion made to thus modify the judgment.-Reynolds v. Hosmer, 45 Cal. 617. [n] If an appeal is taken to the United States supreme court from a decree of the district court confirming a title, an order entered thereafter by the district court pending the appeal that the appeal was thereby dismissed, is absolutely void.-Younger v. Pagles, 60 Cal. 517, 519. [o] The action of this court, upon the presentation of a writ of mandate from the supreme court of the United States, is limited by the directions found in the writ; and where the mandate contains no reference to the affirmation of the judgment theretofore rendered by this court in the cause therein specified, it is useless for the court to reaffirm its order of judgment, and an order reaffirming it will be stricken from the record. Blythe, Estate of, 118 Cal. 347, 50 Pac. 545. FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES: See 62 L. R. A. 513, note. See, also, 11 Cyc. 926-940; 13 Cent. Dig., cols. 28132883, §§ 1045-1093. § 159. Appeal from Circuit to Supreme Court as Suspending Death Sentence. [a] Appeal from order of United States circuit court denying petition of condemned person for writ of habeas corpus suspends proceedings under death sentence of state court.-People v. Durrant, 119 Cal. 203, 204, 51 Pac. 185. FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES: See 48 C. C. A. 351, note. See, also, 11 Cyc. 921-923; 13 Cent. Dig., cols. 2795-2797, §§ 1022-1026. § 160. Jurisdiction of District Courts. [a] If a district court of the United States is authorized by special act of Congress to adjudicate on the validity of a Mexican grant to a tract of land described in a petition filed by the claimant in that court, the court has jurisdiction to reject the grant except a portion thereof, and confirm that portion not thus rejected.-Umbarger v. Chaboya, 49 Cal. 525. [b] If an act of Congress gives jurisdiction to a district court of the United States to adjudicate on the title to certain lands, the court has no authority, under the act, to adjudicate on the title to lands other than those mentioned in the act.-Umbarger v. Chaboya, 49 Cal. 525. [c] It seems that a federal court cannot rightfully transfer property from this state to another state for the mere purpose of giving to the courts of that state jurisdiction to distribute such property, thereby depriving the courts of this state of such jurisdiction; but a United States district court may, without violation of that principle, order the distribution of the surplus proceeds of a vesseltaken under a libel in admiralty from the custody of a receiver of a state court in Oregon, to be made to such receiver as the only person having a vested interest therein. Swinnerton v. Oregon Pac. R. R. Co., 123 Cal. 417, 56 Pac. 40. FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES: See 11 Cyc. 951-953; 13 Cent. Dig., cols. 2904-2912, §§ 1119-1132. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, § 162. EFFECT OF STATUTE CREATING CAUSE OF ACTION AND CONFERRING JURISDICTION ON PARTICULAR COURT, § 163. JURISDICTION CONCURRENT WITH THAT OF PROBATE COURT, § 164. JURISDICTION CONCURRENT WITH THAT OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, § 165. ACTIONS TO ABATE NUISANCE, § 166. RIGHT TO ELECT TRIBUNAL, § 167. PRIORITY OF JURISDICTION, § 168. SCOPE AND EFFECT OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS, § 169. PROCEEDINGS IN PROBATE COURTS AND OTHER COURTS, § 170. PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY AND IN PROBATE COURT, § 171. GRANTING INJUNCTION IN CASE PENDING IN ANOTHER COURT, § 172. ANTAGONISTIC JUDGMENTS RENDERED IN COURTS OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, $173. PRISONERS UNDER ARREST, COMMITMENT OR SENTENCE, § 174. DISCHARGE OF INSOLVENT HELD UNDER PROCESS OF ANOTHER COURT, § 175. INJUNCTION OR PROHIBITION AGAINST PROCEEDINGS, § 176. ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, § 177. VACATING JUDGMENT OF COURT, 178. TRANSFER OF CAUSES, § 179. CO-ORDINATE of jurisdiction in such cases, to the county courts, cannot take away the jurisdiction given to the district courts by the constitution.-Fitzgerald v. Urton, 4 Cal. 235. [b] Justices' courts have jurisdiction in cases of forcible entry. The ninth section of the sixth article of the constitution cannot be construed to confer exclusive original jurisdiction in all special cases upon the county courts.-O'Callaghan v. Booth, 6 Cal. 63. [c] The grant of original jurisdiction in the constitution, to a particular court, of a class of cases, without any words excluding other courts from exercising jurisdiction in the same cases, does not necessarily deprive other courts of concurrent jurisdiction in such cases.-Courtwright v. Bear River etc. Min. Co., 30 Cal. 573. [d] Grant of jurisdiction to a court does not imply that it is exclusive.-Rosenberg v. Frank, 58 Cal. 403. [e] Where a will creates no trust estates, and the questions relating to the distribution thereof are purely legal, a court of equity has no jurisdiction of a suit by the administrator for a decree instructing the probate court as to such distribution, since the jurisdiction of such questions by the probate court is exclusive.-Toland v. Earl, 129 Cal. 148, 79 Am. St. Rep. 100, 61 Pac. 914. FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES: See 11 Cyc. 982-985; 13 Cent. Dig., cols. 2989-3022, §§ 1199-1227; cols. 3044-3048, §§ 1247-1259; col. 3053, §§ 1266-1269. § 162. Constitutionality of Act Conferring Concurrent Jurisdiction. [a] The provision of the constitution that district courts shall have jurisdiction of suits in which the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred dollars, and that the legislature may establish such municipal and other inferior courts as may be deemed necessary, does not require the jurisdiction of the district court to be exclusive, and hence the provision of the statute establishing the superior court of San Francisco, giving it jurisdiction of certain suits in which the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred dollars, is valid.-Seale v. Mitchell, 5 Cal. 401. [b] The legislature cannot confer upon one court the functions and powers which the constitution has conferred on another.Zander v. Coe, 5 Cal. 230. [c] The legislature, in conferring jurisdiction of cases of insolvency on both the district and the county courts, acted in the exercise of a legitimate power, and these courts have concurrent jurisdiction.-Harper Freelon, 6 Cal. 76. V. [d] Constitutional provision conferring jurisdiction in all matters of probate or superior court held not to prevent legislature from determining which court has jurisdiction in any particular estate.-Dungan v. Superior |