of the assembly voting therefor, increase or diminish the number of judges of the superior court in any county, or city and county, in the state; provided, that no such reduction shall affect any judge who has been elected.

ADDITIONAL JUDGES.—When the legislature provides for an additional judge, the governor may appoint a provisional judge to act until the next election, but the term of such judge ends absolutely with the beginning of the constitutional term of the additional judge and is not extended by the failure of the person elected to qualify. (Bush v. Nye, 6 Cal. App. 298, 92 Pac. 108.)

Justices and judges, how removed.

Sec. 10. Justices of the supreme court, and of the district courts of appeal, and judges of the superior courts may be removed by concurrent resolution of both houses of the legislature adopted by a two-thirds vote of each house. All other judicial officers, except justices of the peace, may be removed by the senate on the recommendation of the governor; but no removal shall be made by virtue of this section unless the cause thereof be entered on the journal, nor unless the party complained of has been served with a copy of the complaint against him and shall have had an opportunity of being heard in his defense. On the question of removal the ayes and noes shall be entered on the journal. (Amendment adopted November 8, 1904.)

[ORIGINAL SECTION.]

Sec. 10. Justices of the supreme court, and judges of the superior courts, may be removed by concurrent resolution of both houses of the legislature, adopted by a two-thirds vote of each house. All other judicial officers, except justices of the peace, may be removed by the senate on the recommendation of the governor, but no removal shall be made by virtue of this section, unless the cause thereof be entered on the journal, nor unless the party complained of has been served with a copy of the complaint against him, and shall have had an opportunity of being heard in his defense. On the question of removal, the ayes and noes shall be entered on the journal.

Justices of the peace, provision for.

Sec. 11. The legislature shall determine the number of each of the inferior courts in incorporated cities or towns, and in townships, counties, or cities and counties, according

to the population thereof and the number of judges or justices thereof, and shall fix by law the powers, duties and responsibilities of each of such courts and of the judges or justices thereof; provided, such powers shall not in any case, trench upon the jurisdiction of the several courts of record, except that the legislature shall provide that said courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the superior courts in cases of forcible entry and detainer, where the rental value does not exceed twenty-five dollars per month, and where the whole amount of damages claimed does not exceed two hundred dollars, and in cases to enforce and foreclose liens on personal property when neither the amount of liens nor the value of the property amounts to three hundred dollars. (Amendment approved October 10, 1911.)

[ORIGINAL SECTION.]

Sec. 11. The legislature shall determine the number of justices of the peace to be elected in townships, incorporated cities and towns, or cities and counties, and shall fix by law the powers, duties and responsibilities of justices of the peace; provided, such powers shall not in any case trench upon the jurisdiction of the several courts of record, except that said justices shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the superior courts in cases of forcible entry and detainer, where the rental value does not exceed twentyfive dollars per month, and where the whole amount of damages claimed does not exceed two hundred dollars, and in cases to enforce and foreclose liens on personal property when neither the amount of the liens nor the value of the property amounts to three hundred dollars.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE-Creation of.-A justice's court cannot be created by a freeholders' charter. (People v. Toal, 85 Cal. 333, 24 Pac. 603; People v. Sands, 102 Cal. 12, 36 Pac. 404; Milner v. Reibenstein, 85 Cal. 593, 24 Pac. 935; Ex parte Reilly, 85 Cal. 632, 24 Pac. 807; Ex parte Giambonini, 117 Cal. 573, 49 Pac. 732.)

The laws relating to this portion of the judicial system need not be uniform throughout the state. (Kahn v. Sutro, 114 Cal. 316, 33 L. R. A. 620, 46 Pac. 87.)

The justice's court of Berkeley was not superseded by the Constitution. (Ex parte Armstrong, 84 Cal. 655, 24 Pac. 598.)

The provision of the County Government Act authorizing the supervisors to appoint a justice of the peace to fill a vacancy is not in conflict with this section making them elective. (People v. Chaves, 122 Cal. 134, 54 Pac. 596.)

Justices of the peace are judicial officers and must be elected at the general election. (McGrew v. Mayor etc. of San Jose, 55 Cal.

Justices of the peace are neither city nor county officers, but form part of the judicial system of the state. (People v. Cobb, 133 Cal. 74, 65 Pac. 325; Kahn v. Sutro, 114 Cal. 316, 33 L. R. A. 620, 46 Pac. 87.)

The board of supervisors of a county may by ordinance abolish two contiguous judicial townships having a justice's court in each, and may establish one new consolidated township, comprising the territory of both of them. (Proulx v. Graves, 143 Cal. 243, 76 Pac. 1025.)

The constitutional provision as to justice's courts operates specifically only by means of such local legislation as the state legislature has delegated to the supervisors under general laws, and automatically establishes a justice's court in each township established by the local body which continues while the township exists, and is merged in another justice's court when two townships are merged into one. (Proulx v. Graves, 143 Cal. 243, 76 Pac. 1025.)

Justices of the peace are part of the constitutional judicial system of the state. (Graham v. Fresno, 151 Cal. 465, 91 Pac. 147.)

The legislature, in creating justices' courts, is justified in classifying municipalities in accordance with population. (In re Johnson, 6 Cal. App. 734, 93 Pac. 199.)

As to whether it is necessary to classify justices' courts for the purpose of establishing them, as distinguished from prescribing their duties or jurisdiction, query? (In re Johnson, 6 Cal. App. 734, 93 Pac. 199.)

The amendment of October 10, 1911, of this section does not abolish the justices' courts and other inferior courts which had been previ ously established by acts of the legislature. They remain in existence with the jurisdiction vested in them by the acts creating them, until the legislature shall, in the exercise of the power given by the section as amended, otherwise provide. (Matter of the Application of Woods, 161 Cal. 238, 118 Pac. 792.)

Jurisdiction.-A justice's court is a court of limited and inferior jurisdiction, and its jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively by a party relying upon or claiming any right or title under its judgments. (Eltzroth v. Ryan, 89 Cal. 135, 26 Pac. 647; Jones v. Justice's Court, 97 Cal. 523, 32 Pac. 575; Keybers v. McComber, 67 Cal. 395, 7 Pac. 838.)

There can be no concurrent jurisdiction of any special proceeding other than the two mentioned in this section. (Edsall v. Short, 122 Cal. 533, 55 Pac. 327.)

No power can be conferred upon justices of the peace which has been by the Constitution conferred upon other courts. (Zander v. Coe, 5 Cal. 230; Small v. Gwinn, 6 Cal. 447.)

But where the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution is not exclusive, the same may be conferred upon justices' courts. (People v. Fowler, 9 Cal. 85.)

Where the justice of the peace has no jurisdiction, the judgment should be reversed and the cause dismissed. (Ford v. Smith, 5 Cal.

Constitution-22

It has been held that an appeal to the superior court upon questions of law and fact does not enlarge the jurisdiction of the justice's court, or confer jurisdiction upon the superior court, if the justice's court had no jurisdiction. (Ballerino v. Bigelow, 90 Cal. 500, 27 Pac. 372. But see De Jarnatt v. Marquez, 132 Cal. 700, 64 Pac. 1090; Hart v. Carnall-Hopkins Co., 103 Cal. 132, 37 Pac. 196.)

Where the verified answer in an action in a police court discloses that the action involves the legality of a tax, but, notwithstanding, the court proceeds with the case, and an appeal is taken to the superior court on questions of law and fact, the superior court acquires jurisdiction-not appellate, but original. (Santa Barbara v. Eldred, 95 Cal. 378, 30 Pac. 562.)

The parties to an action in the justice's court cannot confer jurisdiction upon the court of an action involving the title or possession of real estate by failing to plead such lack of jurisdiction by verified answer. (King v. Kutner-Goldstein Co., 135 Cal. 65, 67 Pac. 10.)

Cases at law. A justice's court has no jurisdiction of an action upon a promissory note, where the amount of the principal sum and attorneys' fees demanded exceeds three hundred dollars. (De Jarnatt v. Marquez, 127 Cal. 558, 78 Am. St. Rep. 90, 60 Pac. 45.)

The justice's court has jurisdiction of an action upon a money demand of less than three hundred dollars for improving a street under a private contract, where there is nothing in the pleadings to show that the action involves the title or possession of real estate. (Raisch v. Sausalito Land etc. Co., 131 Cal. 215, 63 Pac. 346.)

Where several suits to recover the same property, the value of which is less than three hundred dollars, are consolidated, the justice's court has jurisdiction of the action as consolidated. (Cariaga v. Dryden, 29 Cal. 307.)

In an action for the recovery of specific property in a justice's court, the standard of jurisdiction is "the value of the property," and it would seem that the justice's jurisdiction for the incidental damages for detention is unlimited; and at all events, the demand for damages cannot oust the justice of jurisdiction, if the value of the property is less than three hundred dollars. (Astell v. Phillippi, 55 Cal. 265; Wratten v. Wilson, 22 Cal. 465.)

A justice's court has no jurisdiction of an action for the recovery of property alleged to exceed three hundred dollars in value, although the complaint prays judgment for a less sum in case possession cannot be had. (Shealor v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. 564, 11 Pac. 653.)

A justice's court has no jurisdiction of a counterclaim exceeding the jurisdictional amount. (Malson v. Vaughn, 23 Cal. 61; Maxfield v. Johnson, 30 Cal. 545.)

The justice's court has jurisdiction of an action for the recovery of property of the value of two hundred and fifty dollars and fifty dollars damages, where the plaintiff only prays for two hundred and ninety-nine dollars, since both the value of the property and the demand are less than three hundred dollars. (Sanborn v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 425.)

Forcible entry and detainer. The words "forcible entry and detainer" include unlawful detainer after the expiration of the term. (Caulfield v. Stevens, 28 Cal. 118; Brummagim v. Spencer, 29 Cal.

661; Mecham v. McKay, 37 Cal. 154; Norblett v. Farwell, 38 Cal. 155; Stoppelkamp v. Mangeot, 42 Cal. 316; Ivory v. Brown, 137 Cal. 603, 70 Pac. 657.)

The actual rental value, and not the value alleged in the complaint, is the test of jurisdiction. (Ballerino v. Bigelow, 90 Cal. 500, 27 Pac. 372.)

The justice's court has no jurisdiction of an action of unlawful detainer, when the amount of rent due is one hundred and twenty dollars, and the plaintiff asks to have it trebled, or of any such case when the amount of the rent when trebled exceeds two hundred dollars. (Hoban v. Ryan, 130 Cal. 96, 62 Pac. 296.)

Real property.—Where the proceedings do not show on their face that the title or possession of real property is involved, but only that it may contingently become involved, the justice has jurisdiction to try the case, unless it appears that the predicted contingency actually occurred during the trial. (Hart v. Carnall-Hopkins Co., 103 Cal. 132, 37 Pac. 196.)

Where a case involving the title or possession of real property is appealed from the justice's court on questions of law and fact, the superior court has jurisdiction to determine the case, and an appeal may be taken to the supreme court in the same manner as if the action had been originally brought in the superior court, or had been transferred to it by the justice. (Hart v. Carnall-Hopkins Co., 103 Cal. 132, 37 Pac. 196.)

A complaint to recover a sum paid upon a contract to locate the plaintiff on certain government land does not necessarily involve the title or possession of real property. (Hart v. Carnall-Hopkins Co., 103 Cal. 132, 37 Pac. 196.)

A justice of the peace has no jurisdiction to try a cause for an injury arising out of a diversion of water. (Hill v. Newman, 5 Cal. 445, 63 Am. Dec. 140.)

If the defendant's verified answer raises a question of title to real property, the cause must be transferred. (Doherty v. Thayer, 31 Cal. 140.)

An action for trespass on real property is within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, when the damages sued for are less thau three hundred dollars. (Pollock v. Cummings, 38 Cal. 683.)

Fines, etc.-An act requiring actions to recover a penalty imposed upon a railroad company, for charging a passenger an excess of fare, to be brought in the justice's court, is valid. (Reed v. Omnibus R. R. Co., 33 Cal. 212; Smith v. Omnibus R. R. Co., 36 Cal. 281.)

The justice's court has jurisdiction of an action to recover two hundred dollars for a forfeiture for issuing a certificate of relief in violation of section 596 of the Political Code, the same being a penalty given by statute, and not a municipal fine. (Thomas v. Justice's Court, 80 Cal. 40, 22 Pac. 80.)

If, in an action to recover a money judgment for taxes, an answer is filed which puts in issue the legality of the tax, the justice of the peace is ousted of jurisdiction. (People v. Mier, 24 Cal. 61.)

Misdemeanors.—The jurisdiction of justices' courts of misdemeanors is exclusive of the jurisdiction of the superior court. (People v. Palermo Land & W. Co., 4 Cal. App. 717, 89 Pac. 723, 725.)