appeal taken within one year after rendition of the same, yet that jurisdiction is lost at the expiration of the year. Haight vs. Gay, 8 Cal., p. 297; affi'd in Milliken vs. Huber, 21 Cal., p. 166.

41. EFFECT OF ADJOURNMENT OF COURT FOR TERM ON ITS JURISDICTION OF CASES PENDING AND DE

CIDED.-A Court does not lose jurisdiction by adjournment before the case has been finally determined; and the Court may yacate a default if final judgment has not been entered, even though the Court has adjourned for the term.-Wilson vs. Cleaveland, 30 Cal., p. 193 (and De Castro vs. Richardson, 25 Cal., p. 49; and Willson vs. McEvoy, id., p. 169, were held not to be inconsistent with this ruling). In a proceeding to condemn land, the District Court did not lose its power or control over the case by reason of its adjournments at any time. It was unfinished business, and necessarily continued in Court until the deed was made and the money paid over under the order of the Court.-Stanford vs. Worn, 27 Cal., p. 174.

42. JURISDICTION OF COURTS OVER CASES DECIDED IS LOST BY ADJOURNMENT FOR THE TERM.-After the adjournment of the term the Court loses all control over cases decided, unless its jurisdiction is saved by some motion or proceeding at the time, except in the single case provided by statute, where the summons has not been served, in which the party is allowed six months to move to set the judgment aside (Suydam vs. Pitcher, 4 Cal., p. 280; Robb vs. Robb, 6 Cal., p. 21; Morrison vs. Dapman, 3 Cal., p. 225; Shaw vs. McGregor, 8 Cal., p. 521; Bell vs. Thompson, 19 Cal., p. 706; Lattimer vs. Ryan, 20 Cal.. p. 632); but the Court has power to make an order nunc pro tunc, or to correct a mere clerical error.-Swain vs. Naglee, 19 Cal., p. 127; De Castro vs. Richardson, 25 Cal., p. 49; see Willson vs. McEvoy, 25 Cal., p. 169.

43. WHERE GENERAL JURISDICTION EXISTS COURT HAS FULL JURISDICTION IN ALL PARTICULARS OF THE CASE.-When a Court has general jurisdiction of a subject it has power to make a full disposition of the matter and conclude litigation respecting it.—Kennedy vs. Hammer, 19 Cal., p. 387.

44. JURISDICTION CANNOT BE CONFERRED BY AGREEMENT OF PARTIES.-A stipulation by parties waiving all objections to jurisdiction cannot confer on a District Court jurisdiction to try a cause in one county when by operation of law the Court is adjourned in that county and its term commenced in another.-Bates vs. Gage, 40 Cal., p. 184; Smith vs.

Chichester, 1 Cal., p. 409; Dominques vs. Dominques, 4 Cal., p. 186; Norwood vs. Kenfield, 34 Cal., p. 329. To sustain a personal judgment the Court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person. Where the jurisdiction of the Court, as to the subject matter, has been limited by the Constitution or by statute, the consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction. But when the limit regards certain persons, they may, if competent, waive their privilege, and this will give the Court jurisdiction. If, however, a party has not been brought into Court, and does not of himself come in and waive the necessity of service, the Court has no jurisdiction over him.-Gray vs. Hawes, 8 Cal., p. 562. There is in these cases, however, a decided distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregularity in procuring jurisdiction.-Whitwell vs. Barbier, 7 Cal., p. 63.

45. JURISDICTION CANNOT BE DIVESTED BY AGREEMENT OF PARTIES.-The agreements of parties cannot divest Courts of law or equity of their proper jurisdiction. Muldrow vs. Norris, 2 Cal., p. 74. The consent of parties cannot alter the jurisdiction of Courts.Biddle Boggs vs. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal., p. 279. Nor can any stipulation made by them affect their jurisdiction.-Reed vs. Bernal, 40 Cal., p. 628.

46. JURISDICTION BY PUBLICATION OF SUMMONS.The statutory provisions for acquiring jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, by publication of the summons instead of a personal service, must be strictly pursued.-People vs. Huber, 20 Cal., p. 81; Jordan vs. Giblin, 12 Cal., p. 100; Evertson vs. Thomas, 5 How. Pr. Rep., p. 45; Kendall vs. Washburn, 14 How. Pr. Rep., p. 380.

47. JURISDICTION IN CASES OF PUBLICATION, NoTICE, SUMMONS, ETC.-Stanford vs. Worn, 27 Cal., p. 174; Steinbach vs. Teese, 27 Cal., p. 295; McMinn vs. Whelan, 27 Cal., p. 300; Braly vs. Seaman, 30 Cal., p. 610; Sharp vs. Daugney, 33. Cal., p. 507; Townsend vs. Tallant, 33 Cal., p. 46; Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal., p. 391; Quivey vs. Porter, 37 Cal., p. 458; McDonald vs. Katz, 31 Cal., p. 169; Forbes vs. Hyde, 31 Cal., p. 342; Eitel vs. Foote, 39 Cal., p. 439; see Secs. 1010-1017, post, inclusive.

48. JURISDICTION BY APPEARANCE OF PARTY IN COURT.-A Court has jurisdiction of the person where he voluntarily put in an appearance without the issuance of summons.-Hayes vs. Shattuck, 21 Cal., p. 51.

49. JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON BY APPEARANCE IN AN ACTION-WHAT IS AN APPEARANCE?-See Sec.

1014, post; Steinbach vs. Teese, 127 Cal., p. 295; Seal vs. McLaughlin, 28 Cal., p. 668; see Sec. 406, post. 50. JURISDICTION BY ADMISSION OF SERVICE.-See Sharp vs. Brunnings, 35 Cal., p. 528.

51. JURISDICTION OVER PERSONS APPEARING BY ATTORNEY.-Court acquires jurisdiction only of those for whom the attorney finally appears.-Forbes vs. Hyde, 31 Cal., p. 342.

52. JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL CASES-ACTIONS TO ABATE NUISANCE.-The Constitution permits the Legislature to confer on County Courts jurisdiction in "special cases;" but the term "special cases" was not meant to include any class of cases for which the Courts of general jurisdiction had always supplied a remedy. The special cases, therefore, must be confined to such new cases as are the creation of statutes and the proceedings under which are unknown to the general framework of Courts of common law and equity. The action to prevent or abate nuisances is not one of these, and is amply provided for in Courts of general jurisdiction. In conferring this power upon County Courts the Legislature exceeded its constitutional authority, and the portion of the Act which contains it is invalid. Parsons vs. Tuolumne Water Co., 5 Cal., p. 43; see, however, Jacks vs. Days, 15 Cal., p. 91.

53. JURISDICTION OF INFERIOR COURTS.-Inferior Courts cannot go beyond the authority conferred upon them by the statute under which they act.-Winter vs. Fitzpatrick, 35 Cal., p. 273.

54. JURISDICTION OF COURT OF EXECUTIVE OF THE STATE BY WRIT OF MANDATE, ETC.-Courts having jurisdiction of writ of mandamus may issue such a writ to the Governor to compel him to perform certain ministerial acts.-Harpending vs. Haight, 39 Cal., p. 189. (Temple, J., dissenting in an elaborate opinion.) Under the distribution of powers by the Constitution the judiciary are not denied jurisdiction in cases where a fugitive from justice from another State is held in custody by virtue of a warrant issued by the Executive of this State. The very object of the habeas corpus was to reach just such cases, and while the Courts of the State possess no power to control the Executive discretion and compel a surrender, yet he having once acted, that discretion may be examined into in every case where the liberty of the subject is involved.-Matter of Peter B. Manchester, 5 Cal., p. 238.

55. JURISDICTION OF COURTS TO INQUIRE INTO LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS, CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS, ETC.-Many provisions of the Constitution are

addressed solely to the legislative department, and it may be said that all those provisions which require the Legislature to do certain things, leaving the means and manner within the legislative discretion, are entirely beyond the reach of the Judiciary, whose functions are wholly different from those of the law-making power. Some of the restrictions upon the powers of that body are addressed solely to the Legislature. As an instance, I may mention those provisions relating to the qualifications, elections, and returns of its own members; and although the Constitution expressly requires certain qualifications to constitute a member of either House, yet each House is expressly 'constituted the exclusive judge of those questions, and this Court could not, in any manner, review such a decision. The true rule seems to be this: that when the right to determine the extent and effect of the restriction is either expressly or by necessary implication confided to the Legislature, then the Judiciary has no right to interfere with the legislative construction, but must take it to be correct. But in all other cases or restriction it is the .right and duty of this Court to decide the effect and extent of the restriction in the last resort. And as to the question whether the right to determine the extent and effect of the restriction is vested in the Legislature or in the Judiciary, this Court must equally determine in the last resort.-Nougues vs. Douglass, 7 Cal., p. 65; see, also, Ex Parte Shrader, 33 Cal., p. 279. But a Court cannot review the action of the Legislature upon a question whether or not a certain enterprise (such as a railroad) is a public benefit or use. The legislative declaration seems to be held final as to such matters.Napa V. R. R. Co. vs. Napa Co., 30 Cal., p. 437; also, as to jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over a legislative Act declaring certain improvements a "public use," see Sherman vs. Buick, 32 Cal., p. 241.

56. POWER OF LEGISLATURE OVER COURTS AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS.-A special law directing a certain Court to grant an order transferring an indictment pending therein against a party, for murder, to another District Court, is constitutional.-Smith vs. Judge of Twelfth Jud. Dist., 17 Cal., p. 547. This case also comments on the general power of the Legislature over Courts. It has been held that the Legislature can impose no duties upon the Judiciary but such as are of a judicial character. The Legislature cannot delegate to a Court the power of establishing town governments

5-VOL. I.

Courts of record.

34.

or incorporating colleges and the like.-People vs. Town of Nevada, 6 Cal., p. 143; Burgoyne vs. Supervisors of San Francisco, 5 Cal., p. 9; Phelan vs. San Francisco, 20 Cal., p. 39; affirming s. c., 6 Cal., p. 531. Nor can it authorize a County Judge to designate the time and place of holding an election; such is not a judicial act.-Dickey vs. Hurlburt, 5 Cal., p. 343.

57. MISCELLANEOUS.-See, also, as to jurisdiction, etc., of the several Courts mentioned, Secs. 42, 43, 44, 57, 84, 85, 86, 97, 106, 114, 115, 116, 117, 121, 128, 129, 165, 187, 259, post, and notes.

The Courts enumerated in the first six subdivisions of the preceding section are Courts of record. NOTE.-Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal., p. 391.

Members of the Court.

Jurisdiction.

Officers of the Court.

Trial of impeach

ments provided

for in Penal Gode.

CHAPTER II.

OF THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENTS.

SECTION 35. Members of the Court.

36. Jurisdiction.

37. Officers of the Court.

38. Trial of impeachments provided for in Penal Code.

35. The Court for the trial of impeachments is composed of the members of the Senate, or a majority of them.

36. The Court has power to try impeachments, when presented by the Assembly, of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Surveyor General, Justices of the Supreme Court, and Judges of the District Courts, for any misdemeanor in office.

NOTE.-Const., Art. 4, Sec. 18.

37. The officers of the Senate are the officers of the Court.

38. Proceedings on the trial of impeachments are provided for in THE PENAL CODE.

NOTE.-See Penal Code, Secs. 737-753, inclusive.