Turner, 1 Cal. 143; White v. Lighthall, Id. 347; Purcell v. McKune, 14 Id. 230, approved in Flagley v. Hubbard, 22 Id. 38; see, also, Milliken v. Huber, 21 Id. 169; Lewis v. Barclay, 35 Id. 213, approving People v. Weston, 28 Id. 639. But only in cases where there has been an excess of jurisdiction in the court below: Coulter v. Stark, 7 Cal. 244; Miller v. Board Supervisors Sac. Co., 25 Id. 93; People v. Johnson, 30 Id. 98. It may issue all writs necessary or proper for the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction: Adams v. Town, 3 Cal. 247; Cowell v. Buckelew, 14 Id. 642.

SUPREME COURT.

46. The Legislature cannot take away or impair the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but may prescribe the mode in which appeals may be taken: Haight v. Gay, 8 Cal. 300. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review all cases which the District Courts have jurisdiction to try: Solomon v. Reese, 34 Cal. 28.

47. The Supreme Court loses jurisdiction over a case after the remittitur is issued, and the term at which the judgment was rendered has passed: Davidson v. Dallas, 15 Cal. 75. Or after the remittitur has been filed in the court below: Mateer v. Brown, 1 Cal. 221, affirmed in Blanc v. Bowman, 22 Id. 23; Rowland v. Kreyenhagen, 24 Id. 58; but see Vance v. Pence, 36 Id. 328.

48. The power which the judiciary possesses to declare a law unconstitutional comprehends the necessary authority of carrying its judgments into effect: Nougues v. Douglas, 7 Cal. 65; McCauley v. Brooks, 16 Cal. 43, 64, and 65.

II. OF THE DISTRICT COURTS.

49. The State of California is now divided into twentythree judicial districts, in each of which there is a District Court. The judges thereof are elected by the qualified voters of the district at special judicial elections, and hold office for the term of six years.

50. The Legislature of the State has no power to grant a leave of absence from the State to a judicial officer; and any district judge who absents himself from the State for the period of thirty consecutive days, forfeits his office: Const. of Cal. art. VI, sec. 5.

51. The constitution does not require District Courts to be held at the county seat: Upham v. Sutter Co., 8 Cal. 378. The district judge has power to hold a court in another district: People v. McCauley, 1 Cal. 379, approved in People v. Wells, 2 Cal. 207.

52. The Code of Civil Procedure requires the terms of the District Court to be held at the county seat: see section 75, also, sec. 142. The period for which each term shall be held, adjournments, etc., are provided in sections 76 and 77.

53. The District Courts have original jurisdiction: 1. In all cases in equity; and, 2. In all cases at law which involve the title or possession of real property; 3. The legality of any tax, toll, impost, assessment, or municipal fine; 4. In all cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to three hundred dollars; 5. In all criminal cases where the indictment is for murder or arson; 6. The District Courts and their judges shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, on petition by, or in behalf of any person held in actual custody in their respective districts: Const. of Cal., art. VI, sec. 6; Hicks v. Bell, 3 Cal. 219.

54. In actions for the recovery of money the District Court has jurisdiction, if the sum sued for amounts to three hundred dollars, exclusive of interest, regardless of the sum for which judgment may be obtained: Solomon v. Reese, 34 Cal. 28. Where the principal sum sued for is less than two hundred dollars (now three hundred dollars) the District Court has no jurisdiction: Arnold v. Van Brunt, 4 Cal. 89.

55. Sec. 6 of art. VI of the constitution gives the District Courts jurisdiction in all actions in which the title or possession of real property is an issuable fact in the case. It is not necessary that title or possession be put in issue, but one or the other must be an issuable fact necessary to be averred in the pleadings. And this, regardless of the sum sued for: Cullen v. Langridge, 17 Cal. 67; approved in Henderson v. Allen, 23 Id. 520.

56. The character of the action is to be determined by the prayer of the complaint. If the prayer asks for a money

judgment, it is an action at law; if it asks for the foreclosure of a lien, order of sale, etc., it is a suit in equity. In the former the District Court has no jurisdiction where the amount is less than three hundred dollars, and the ad damnum clause is the test: Maxfield v. Johnson, 30 Cal. 545; Solomon v. Reese, 34 Id. 28. In the latter it has jurisdiction, regardless of the amount claimed: People v. Mier, 24 Cal. 61, affirmed in Bell v. Crippen, 28 Id. 328; Courtwright v. Bear River and Aub. Wat. and Min. Co., 30 Id. 581; Mahlstadt v. Blanc, 34 Id. 577.

57. The court below loses all power over a cause in which it has rendered judgment upon the adjournment of the term, and cannot disturb its judgments except in cases provided by statute: Suydam v. Pitcher, 4 Cal. 280, affirmed in Carpentier v. Hart, 5 Id. 407; Shaw v. McGregor, 8 Id. 521; De Castro v. Richardson, 25 Id. 52; Casement v. Ringgold, 28 Id. 338; see also Whipley v. Dewey, 17 Id. 314.

58. District Courts have no appellate jurisdiction: People v. Peralta, 3 Cal. 379; Canfield v. Hudson, Id. 389; Hernandes v. Simon, Id. 464; Gray v. Schupp, 4 Id. 185; Reed v. McCormick, Id. 342, affirmed in Parsons v. Tuol. Wat. Co., 5 Cal. 43; Keller v. Franklin, Id. 534; Becket v. Selover, 7 Id. 240; and People v. Fowler, 9 Id. 86; Townsend v. Brooks, 5 Id. 52; Zander v. Coe, 5 Id. 230; People v. Applegate, Id. 295, affirmed in People v. Vick, 7 Id. 166; People v. Johnson, 30 Id. 101; People v. Shear, 7 Id. 140; People Apgar, 35 Id. 389.

59. The District Court is a court of general original jurisdiction; its process is co-extensive with the State: Reyes v. Sanford, 5 Cal. 117, and the regularity of its proceedings is presumed: People v. Robinson, 17 Id. 363, approved in People v. Robinson, 27 Id. 67; People v. Judge Tenth Jud. Dist., 9 Id. 19. As to the power of supervision of District Courts over inferior tribunals, see Miliken v. Huber, 21 Cal. 166.

60. A district judge while sitting in an equity case is possessed of all the powers of a Court of Chancery: Sanford v. Head, 5 Cal. 297; People v. Davidson, 30 Cal. 380, approved in Courtwright v. B. R. & A. W. & M. Co., 30 Cal. 585; Mahlstadl v. Blanc, 34 Cal. 577. So in cases of nui

sance: Courtwright v. B. R. and Auburn Wat. and Mining Co., 30 Cal. 585; Wright v. Miller, 1 Sandf. Ch. R. 120; Reigal v. Wood, 1 Johns. Ch. R. 401.

61. Criminal Jurisdiction.-The criminal jurisdiction of District Courts is confined to cases of felony: People v. Fowler, 9 Cal. 87.

62. Divorce.---In suit for a divorce, and partition of the property acquired during coverture, the jurisdiction of the District Court is not limited as to the amount: Deuprez v. Deuprez, 5 Cal. 387. District Courts have jurisdiction to decree relief in alimony to the wife, in a separate action, unconnected with a suit for divorce: Galland v. Galland, 38 Cal. 265, citing Purcell v. Purcell, 4 Hen. & Munf. 507; Almond v. Almond, 4 Rand. 662; Logan v. Logan, 2 B. Monr. 142; Prather v. Prather, 4 Desares, 33; Rhame v. Rhame, 1 McCord Ch. R.; Glover v. Glover, 16 Ala. 446. Or, to enforce an agreement for separation and alimony in connection: Galland v. Galland, supra. And, in general, whenever the wife is entitled to live separate from her husband, by reason of breaches of matrimonial duty committed by him, a concurring adjudication must be pronounced that he support her while so living: 2 Story's Eq. Jur. secs. 1422, 1424; Fiscole v. Fiscole, 1 Blackf. 365; Chapman v. Chapman, 13 Ind. 397; Shannon v. Shannon, 2 Gray, 285; Leafe v. Leafe, 4 Foster, 567; Parsons v. Parsons, 9 N. H. 309; Lawson v. Shotwell, 27 Miss. 633; Doyle v. Doyle, 26 Mo. 549; Yule v. Yule, 2 Stock. 143; Covey v. Covey, 3 Id. 400; McGee v. McGee, 10 Geo. 482; Peltier v. Peltier, Harringt. (Mich.) Ch. R. 29.

63. Forcible Entry.-In Nevada, District Courts have jurisdiction in actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Hoopes v. Meyer, 1 Nev. 433. In California that jurisdiction is conferred on the county courts: Const. of Cal., art. vi., sec. 8.

64. Fugitives.-State courts of general original jurisdiction, exercising the usual powers of common law courts, are fully competent to hear and determine all matters, and to issue all necessary writs for the arrest and transfer of fugitive criminals to the authorized agent of the State from which they fled, without any special legislation: In re Romaine, 23 Cal. 585; 106 Mass. 225.

65. Nuisance.-Under the constitution, District Courts have jurisdiction in cases of nuisance. The grant of the Legislature of jurisdiction in such cases to the County Courts, cannot take away the jurisdiction given to the District Court by the constitution: Fitzgerald v. Urton, 4 Cal. 235; Courtwright v. Bear River and Aub. Water and Mining Co., 30 Cal. 573.

66. Partition. The District Courts have jurisdiction of actions to recover one-half of the value of a partition fence, although the amount sought to be recovered is less than three hundred dollars-such action involving title to land: Holman v. Taylor, 31 Cal. 338.

67. Probate.-The District Courts have the same control over the persons of minors, as well as their estates, that the Courts of Chancery in England possess. This jurisdiction is conferred by the constitution, and cannot be divested by any legislative enactment. The claim of exclusive original jurisdiction in the Courts of Probate over the same subject-matter is unfounded: Wilson v. Roach, 4 Cal. 362, approved in Belloc v. Rogers, 9 Cal. 129; Clark v. Perry, 5 Cal. 58; Griggs v. Clark, 3 Cal. 429. The Court of Chancery has

inherent jurisdiction in an administration suit to appoint trustees, where none have been appointed by the administrator: Dodkin v. Brunt, Law Rep. 6 Eq. 580. This jurisdiction of the District Courts does not, however, apply to the administration of estates.

68. It is a favorite rule in equity, that when a Court of Chancery gains jurisdiction of a case for one purpose, it will retain it for others, and not do justice by halves, and thus foster a multiplicity of suits: Belloc v. Rogers, 9 Cal. 129, approved in Hensch v. Porter, 10 Cal. 559; Willis v. Farley, 24 Cal. 499. These decisions are affirmed in Griggs v. Clark, 23 Cal. 429, where it reiterates that "the jurisdiction vested in the Probate Court does not divest the District Courts of their general jurisdiction as Courts of Chancery over certain actions."

69. Taxes in Action of Law.-An action brought before the Revenue Act of 1861, to recover judgment for unpaid taxes, is not a case in equity, but an action at law, and where the amount is less than three hundred dollars, the District Court has no jurisdiction: People v. Mier, 24 Cal. 61, affirmed in Bell v. Crippen, 28 Id. 327; Courtwright v. Bear River and Aub. Water and Mining Co., 30 Cal. 581; and Mahlstadt v. Blanc, 34 Id. 580.

70. Taxes-In Equity.-If, however, the action is brought under the provisions of the 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: Bell v. Crippen, 28 Cal. 327.

71. Trespass, Damages for.-District Courts have jurisdiction in all actions to recover damages for trespass upon lands, regardless of the amount of damages claimed. Id.

72. Writs, Issuance of.-District Courts have power to issue writs of mandate, review, prohibition, habeas corpus, and all writs necessary to the exercise of its powers: Cal. Code C. P., sec. 57, subd. 5.

III. OF COUNTY COURTS.

73. There shall be in each of the organized counties of the State a County Court, for each of which a county judge shall be elected by the qualified electors of the county, at the special judicial elections to be held, as provided for the election of justices of the Supreme Court by section 3 of this article. The county judges shall hold their offices for the term of four years from the first day of January next after their election. Said courts shall also have power to issue naturalization papers. In the city and county of San Francisco, the Legislature may separate the office of probate judge from that of county judge, and may provide for the election of a probate judge, who shall hold his office for the term of four years: Const. of Cal. art. VI, sec. 7; Code C. P. sec. 83.