harmony with the constitution. Sections 73-4, C. C. P. In re Gannon, 69 Cal. 541.

A jury may be discharged on a legal holiday. (Secs. 134 C. Č. P. and 1142 Penal Code.) The constitution does not prohibit all business in the Superior Court on legal holidays, excepting issuing injunc tions and writs, but it prohibits the legislature from establishing terms during which only judicial business can be transacted. People v. Soto, 65 Cal. 621.

An action to settle a trust in relation to real property, is not required to be brought in the county where the property is situated. Le Breton v. Superior Court, 66 Cal. 27.

The provision requiring all actions for recovery of possession of, quieting title to, or enforcement of liens upon real estate, does not apply to actions commenced prior to the adoption of this constitution. Watt v. Wright, 66 Cal. 202.

Place of trial of actions for injuries to real property, see section 392, C. C. P. City of Marysville v. North Bloomfield, etc. Co., 66 Cal. 343.

An action brought in the district court in San Francisco prior to the adoption of this constitution, to foreclose a mortgage on lands in Fresno county, was succeeded to by the Superior Court in and for San Francisco, and its decree of foreclosure was valid. The provision of the present constitution requiring such actions to be brought in the county where the land affected is situated, is prospective. (Gurnee . Superior Court, 58 Cal. 88.) Watt r. Wright, 66 Cal. 202.

An equitable action to remove trustees under a will, brought in San Francisco, will not be restrained by prohibition on account of real estate held by the trustees located in Santa Barbara, and which may be affected by the action. More v. Superior Court, 64 Cal. 345.

The section is prospective only in its effect. An action for recovery of real estate situate in Sonoma county, pending in a district court in San Francisco, was succeeded to by the Superior Court of San Fran

cisco, and not the Superior Court of Sonoma. Prior to this constitution the action could properly be commenced in San Francisco. Gurnee v. Superior Court, 58 Cal. 88. Affirmed in S. F. S. U. v. Abbott, 59 Cal. 400.

An action to foreclose the right of vendee under contracts for purchase of land, although construed as for "strict foreclosure," is an action for enforcement of lien, and must be brought in the county where the land is situated. (Urton v. Wood, 87 Cal. 38; Pac. Y. Club v. Sausalito B. W. Co., 98 Cal. 487; Fritz v. Camp, 95 Cal.393.) S. P. R. R. Co., v. Pixley, opinion filed June 15, 1894. 37. Pac. Rep. 194.

The section does not provide that the action must be tried, but simply that it must be commenced in the county in which the land is situated, and section 997, C. C. P., is not obnoxious to any constitutional provision. Hancock v. Burton, 61 Cal. 70.

As to all cases in equity, the same jurisdiction that was conferred by the former constitution (Sec. 6, Art. VI) is conferred by the new constitution on the Superior Courts. And the jurisdiction of our courts in equity is to be tested by reference to the jurisdiction actually exercised by the court of chancery in England when our constitution was adopted, except so far as such jurisdiction is modified by our constitution or the constitution of the United States. Estate of Hinckley, 58 Cal. 585.

By operation of the constitution itself, the Superior Court became vested with jurisdiction of all cases of felony, and was the successor of all other courts which had theretofore possessed jurisdiction in such cases. Ex parte Williams, 87 Cal. 78; Smith v. Hill, 89 Cal. 123-128; People v. Colby, 54 Cal. 184.

Where the justices' court has not jurisdiction to try a cause, the Superior Court on appeal has not jurisdiction to try it. Shealor v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. 565. Contra, Sanborn v. Contra Costa Co., 60 Cal. 427.

Where the sole question presented is whether the amount collected is a legal toll, and not as to an excessive collection, the jurisdiction is in the Superior

and not in the justices' court. Culbertson v. Kinevan, 68 Cal. 490.

The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction of a case involving the alleged right of persons to possess lands claimed to constitute a toll-road as against those who deny the right and refuse to pay toll for passing over the road. People v. Horsely et als., 65 Cal. 381. In issuing writs of certiorari, mandate and prohibition, the Supreme and Superior Courts are peers; both have original jurisdiction. Whether the judgment of each is final is not decided. Santa Cruz Gap T. Co. v. Santa Clara Co., 62 Cal. 40.

Mandamus will not issue to compel an allowance to reporter of Supreme Court of salary exceeding twentyfive hundred dollars per annum, payable monthly. Smith v. Kenfield, 57 Cal. 138.

In actions to condemn land for purposes of a railroad, the jurisdiction is in the court of the county where the land is situated. Cal. So. R. R. Co. v. S. P. R. R. Co., 65 Cal. 409, 394.

Prior to the present constitution the code provided for appeals from justices' courts to the county courts.

There was no specific provision of the legislature providing for appeals from justices' courts to the Superior Court until the act of March 26, 1880, (Stats. p. 53) amending section 974 C. C. P., but under section 11, article XXII of the new constitution, the laws relating to appeals from justices' courts were continued in force, and under the new judicial system the Superior Courts had jurisdiction to hear such appeals. Cal. F. & M. S. Co. v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 305.

The Superior Court has no jurisdiction to try cases of petit larceny even where the grand jury finds indictments for such offense. Petit larceny is not among the misdemeanors "not otherwise provided for." Section 115, C. C. P. Whether or not there are other misdemeanors included in that section which are required by the constitution to be prosecuted by information or indictment, not decided. Ex parte Wallingford, 60 Cal. 103. Nor of

indictment for misdemeanor of keeping open a saloon on Sunday. Gafford v. Bush, 60 Cal. 150.

An action to abate a nuisance was a suit in equity under the former constitution, and its character was not changed upon the adoption of the new constitution. Such action pending in the district court at the adoption of the present constitution was succeeded to by the Superior Court. Learned v. Castle, 67 Cal. 41.

The offense of nuisance defined in section 370 Penal Code, is, according to section 377, same code, within jurisdiction of Superior Court. In matter of Kurtz, 68 Cal. 412.

Upon trial under an information for assault with deadly weapon and verdict of guilty of assault, the Superior Court has jurisdiction to pronounce sentence. The information gave the court jurisdiction, and the offence of which defendant was found guilty was within the scope of that charged in the information. Ex parte Donahue, 65 Cal. 474. See also People v. Fahey, 64 Cal. 342.

SECTION 6. There shall be in each of the organized counties, or cities and counties of the state, a Superior Court, for each of which at least one judge shall be elected by the qualified electors of the county, or city and county, at the general state election provided, that until otherwise ordered by the legislature, only one judge shall be elected for the counties of Yuba and Sutter, and that in the city and county of San Francisco there shall be elected twelve judges of the Superior Court, any one or more of whom may hold court. There may be as many sessions of said court, at the same time, as there are judges thereof. The said judges shall choose from their own number a presiding judge, who may be removed at their pleasure, He shall distribute the business of the court among the judges thereof, and prescribe the order of business. The judgments, orders and proceedings of any session of the Superior Court, held by any one or more of the judges of said court, respectively, shall be equally effectual as if all the judges of said respective courts presided at such session. In each of the counties of Sacramento, San Joaquin, Los Angeles, Sonoma,

Santa Clara and Alameda there shall be elected two such judges. The term of office of judges of the Superior Courts shall be six years from and after the first Monday of January next succeeding their election; provided, that the twelve judges of the Superior Court, elected in the city and county of San Francisco at the first election held under this constitution, shall, at their first meeting, so classify themselves, by lot, that four of them shall go out of office at the end of two years, and four of them shall go out of office at the end of four years, and four of them shall go out of office at the end of six years, and an entry of such classification shall be utes of the court, signed by them, and a filed in the office of the secretary of state. of judges of the Superior Courts shall take place at the first general election held after the adoption and ratification of this constitution. If a vacancy occur in the office of judge of a Superior Court, the governor shall appoint a person to hold the office until the election and qualification of a judge to fill the vacancy, which election shall take place at the next succeeding general election, and the judge so elected shall hold office for the remainder of the unexpired term.

made in the minduplicate thereof The first election

The term of Superior Court judges being six years, their term of office commences under article 20, section 20, on first Monday after first day of January next following their election. Merced Bank v. Rosenthal, 99 Cal. 39.

When a new judgeship is created by the legislature under section 9, article VI, the first judge appointed to said office will hold until the next election by the people, and qualification of the person elected; and the first person so elected will ho'd office for six years, commencing on the first Monday after the first day of January next after his election. A person appointed by the governor to fill a vacancy in such office, holds under his appointment only until the next general election, and the person then elected will hold office until the expiration of the term in which the vacancy had occurred. People v. Waterman, 86 Cal. 27.

SECTION 7. In any county, or city and county, other than the city and county of San Francisco, in which there shall be