D'Ivernois v. Leavitt, 23 Barb. 63. They have jurisdiction in an action for a breach of covenant to convey real property situate in a foreign State: Mott v. Coddington, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 290; Bailey v. Rider, 10 N. Y. 363; Gardner v. Ogden, 22 N. Y. 327; Newton v. Bronson, 13 N. Y. 587; Fenner v. Sanborn, 37 Barb. 610. Thus, in the case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore, specific performance of a contract for lands lying in America was decreed in England: 1 Ves. 444. So, in the case of the Earl of Kildare v. Sir Morrice Eustace and Fitzgerald, it was held that a trust in relation to lands lying in Ireland may be enforced in England if the trustee live in England: 1 Vern. 419. So, if the subject of the contract or trust be within the jurisdiction, but the parties are not. See, also, Arglass v. Muschamp, 1 Vern. 75; Toller v. Cateret, 2 Id. 494; Massic v. Watts, 2 Cranch, 148; Cleveland v. Burnell, 25 Barb. 523; Newbor v. Bronson, 3 Kiern. 587; Rourke v. MeLaughlin, Cal. Sup. Ct., Jury T., 1869. But the State courts have no jurisdiction of an action for injury to real estate out of that State; Mott v. Coddington, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 290; Watts v. Kinney, 6 Hill. 82.

26. Torts Generally.-State courts have jurisdiction of actions for torts committed in a foreign State, where the defendant is served with process within the State. So held in New York: Hull v. Vreeland, 18 Abb. Pr. 182; Latourette v. Clark, 45 Barb. 323. So also for a fraudulent conspiracy formed in another State: Mussina v. Belden, 6 Abb. Pr. 165.

27. United States or U. S. Officers.-The United States or a State may consent to be sued in a State court: The People of Mich. v. Phoenix Bk. 4 Bosw. 382. Or an action may be maintained in a State court against officers of the United States government in certain cases: Ripley v. Gelston, 9 Johns. 201; Re Stacey, 10 d. 328; Hoyt v. Gelston, 13 Id. 141; Wilson v. McKenzie, 7 Hill. 95; Teal v. Felton, 1 Comst. 537; McButt v. Murray, 10 Abb. Pr. 196.

28. Within the Jurisdiction of the court, means within the State: People v. McCauley, 1 Cal. 380; Stevens v. Irwin, 12 Cal. 306. But whenever the statute prescribes certain specific acts to be done as prerequisites to the acquiring of jurisdiction, such acts must be substantially performed in the manner prescribed: Sleel v. Steel, 1 Nev. 27; Paul v. Armstrong, Id. 82. The jurisdiction of State courts extends to hearing and determining cases left pending in the late United States territorial courts: Hastings v. Johnson, 2 Nev. 190.

OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION OF COURTS.

29. In the State of California, the jurisdiction of the several courts is fixed by the constitution, which prescribes that "the judicial powers of the State shall be vested in a Supreme Court, in District Courts, in County Courts, in Probate Courts, and in Justices of the Peace, and in such Recorders' and other inferior courts, as the Legislature may establish in any incorporated city or town:" Const. of Cal. Art. VI, sec. 1. And each branch of the judicial department has its functions assigned: Parsons v. Tuol. Co. Wat. and Min. Co., 5 Cal. 42.

30. That the legislature cannot confer other than judicial functions upon any court, was held in Burgoyne v. Supervisors of San Francisco, 5 Cal. 9, which was affirmed in Exline v. Smith, Id. 113; People v. Applegate, Id. 295; Dickey v. Hurlburt, Id. 344; Thompson v. Williams, 6 Id. 89; People v. Town of Nevada, Id. 144; Tuolumne Co. v. Stanilaus Co., Id. 442; Phelan v. San Francisco, Id. 540; Hardenburg v. Kidd, 10 Id. 403; People v. Bircham, 12 Id. 55; Phelan v. San Francisco, 20 Id. 42; People v. Sanderson, 30 Id. 167; but in People v. Provines, 34 Id. 525, the case of Burgoyne v. Supervisors of San Francisco was commented on and overruled (obiter dictum); see also People v. Bush, 40 Id. 344.

31. Municipal and inferior courts can only be of inferior, limited, and special jurisdiction: Meyer v. Kalkman, 6 Cal. 582, cited in Kenyon v. Welty, 20 Id. 640; Courtwright v. Bear Riv. and Aub. Wat. and Min. Co., 30 Cal. 579. The term "Municipal Courts" includes Mayors' and Recorders' courts: Uridias v. Morrill, 22 Id. 473, approved in Uridias v. Buzee, Cal. Sup. Ct., July T. 1863; and cited in People v. Provines, 34 Cal. 520. Inferior courts cannot go beyond the power conferred upon them by statute, nor can they assume power by implication: Winter v. Fitzpatrick, 35 Cal. 269; Morley v. Elkins, 37 Id. 454.

32. Where the statute creating a new right and a particular remedy for violation thereof, provides that the remedy must be pursued in a particular court, no other court has jurisdiction: Smith v. Omnibus R. R. Co., 36 Cal. 281. In such case the statute must be strictly pursued: Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Id. 195. The constitution not having defined the jurisdiction of the municipal courts authorized to be established, it is left to be regulated by the legislature under its general powers: Uridias v. Morrill, 22 Id. 473.

I. THE SUPREME COURT.

33. It is prescribed by the constitution of the State of California, that the Supreme Court shall consist of a chief justice and four associate justices. The presence of three justices shall be necessary to the transaction of business, except such as may be done at chambers; and the concur

rence of three shall be necessary to pronounce a judgment: Const. of Cal. art. VI, sec. 2; see People v. Wells, 2 Cal. 202.

34. The judges of this court are elected by the qualified electors of the State, at a separate or judicial election, and shall hold office for the term of ten years. They are so classified that one justice goes out of office every two years, and each of the justices acts as chief justice for the last two years of his term of office: Const. of Cal., Art. VI, sec. 3; People v. Wells, 2 Cal. 202; People v. Langdon, 8 Id. 16; cited as to term of office in People v. Whitman, 10 Id. 46.

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT.

35. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction: 1. In all cases in equity; 2. In all cases at law involving the title or possession of real estate; 3. In all cases affecting the legality of any tax, toll, impost, assessment or municipal fine; 4. In all matters in which the demand, exclusive of interest, exceeds the sum of three hundred dollars; 5. In all cases where the value of the property in dispute exceeds the sum of three hundred dollars; 6. In all cases arising in the probate courts; 7. In all criminal cases amounting to felony, on questions of law alone; 8. The Supreme Court has power to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and habeas corpus; 9. And, also, all writs necessary for the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction: Const. of Cal. art. VI, sec. 4.

36. The Supreme Court is clothed by the constitution with the powers and jurisdiction of the court of King's Bench, in England: Ex parte Attorney-general, 1 Cal. 85.

JURISDICTION APPELLATE.

37. This court has no other than appellate jurisdiction, except in writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and habeas corpus: Caulfield v. Hudson, 3 Cal. 389, affirmed in Reed v. McCormick, 4 Id. 342; Parsons v. Tuolumne, 5 Id. 43; Townsend v. Brooks, Id. 52; Zander v. Coe, Id. 230; People v. Applegate, Id. 295; cited in People v. Hester, 6 Id. 681; sustained in People v. Fowler, 9 Id. 86. It has appellate jurisdiction in all cases; provided, that when the sub

ject-matter is capable of pecuniary compensation, the matter in dispute must exceed in value three hundred dollars, unless the legality of a tax, toll, impost, or municipal fine is in question: Conant v. Conant, 10 Cal. 249, approved in Perry v. Ames, 26 Id. 386; People v. Rosborough, 29 Id. 418; Courtwright v. Bear River and Auburn Water and Mining Co., 30 Id. 579, affirmed in Knowles v. Yeates, 31 Id. 84; Dumphy v. Guindon, 13 Id. 30. So in cases of divorce: Conant v. Conant, 10 Id. 249. So in cases of contested elections on appeal from county courts: Middleton v. Gould, 5 Id. 190; Knowles v. Yeates, 31 Id. 82, affirmed in Day v. Jones, Id. 263. On questions of fraud made in petition of insolvent debtor: Fisk v. His Creditors, 12 Id. 281, approved in People v. Shepard, 28 Id. 115; People v. Rosborough, 29 Id. 418. As to appellate jurisdiction generally, see 42 Id. 35.

38. The Supreme Court may exercise its appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases confined to felony: People v. Applegate, 5 Cal. 295, affirmed in People v. Vick, 7 Id. 165; People v. Johnson, 30 Id. 101; People v. Shear, 7 Id. 139; People v. Fowler, 9 Id. 86; People v. Apgar, 35 Id. 389; see, also, People v. Cornell, 16 Id. 187; People v. War, 20 Id. 117; People v. Burney, 29 Id. 459; People v. Jones, 31 Id. 576. The question whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review criminal cases upon questions of fact, raised, but not decided: People v. Dodge, 30 Id. 455.

39. In actions for damages to real property when the question of title is involved it has appellate jurisdiction, although the damages claimed are less than three hundred. dollars: Doherty v. Thayer, 31 Cal. 140.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.

40. Its appellate jurisdiction extends to all cases in which the demand in controversy in the court below exceeds the sum of three hundred dollars; the amount sued for being the test of the jurisdiction: Maxfield v. Johnson, 30 Cal. 545; Solomon v. Reese, 34 Id. 34; 6 Nev. 162.

41. The words, "matter in dispute," in art. VI. sec. 4 of the Constitution of California, mean the subject of litigation, the matter for which suit is brought: Dumphy v. Guindon, 13 Cal. 28; affirmed in Meeker v. Harris, 23 Id. 286; Bolton v.

Landers, 27 Id. 107; Gillespie v. Benson, 18 Id. 409; Zabriskie v. Torrey, 20 Id. 174; Votan v. Reese, 20 Id. 91.

42. If an appeal is taken by the plaintiff from a judgment in his favor, then the amount in dispute is the difference between the amount of the judgment and the sum claimed. by the complaint: Skillman v. Lachman, 23 Cal. 198. But if the judgment is for the defendant, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is determined by the amount claimed in the complaint. Id.

43. If the appeal is taken by defendant from a judgment in his favor, where he set up a counter-claim, the amount in dispute is the difference between the amount of the judgment, exclusive of costs, and the sum claimed in his counterclaim. The interest due forms no part of the amount in dispute; so also costs constitute no part thereof: Dumphy v. Guindon, 13 Cal. 28; Votan v. Reese, 20 Id. 89; Zabriskie v. Torrey, Id. 173; Maxfield v. Johnson, 30 Id. 545.

44. Where plaintiff had judgment against defendant for six hundred dollars, and defendant had judgment in the same court, in another action, for one hundred and ten dollars, a motion by plaintiff that defendant's judgment be set off against plaintiff's judgment was denied, from which plaintiff appeals: Held, that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction, the judgment sought to be set off being less than three hundred dollars: Crandall v. Blen, 15 Cal. 407. The fact that defendant sets up a counter-claim in excess of three hundred dollars does not give jurisdiction on appeal: Maxfield v. Johnson, 30 Cal. 545.

ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.

45. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and habeas corpus: Am. Const. of Cal. art. VI. sec. 4; Ex parte Attorney-General, 1 Cal. 87; Warner v. Hall, Id. 90, affirmed in Warner v. Kelly, Id. 91; Tyler v. Houghton, 25 Id. 28, affirmed in Miller v. Board of Supervisors Sac. Co., Id. 93; People v. Loucks, 28 Id. 71; Courtwright v. Bear Riv. and Aub. Wat. and Min. Co., 30 Id. 585; see, also, Perry v. Ames, 26 Id. 383. It may exercise its appellate jurisdiction by means of the writs of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition: People v.