Court appellate jurisdiction whether the involution may be said to be merely incidental or not. [Copertini v. Opperman, supra, and Holman v. Taylor, 31 Cal. 341.] Hart v. Carnall-Hopkins Co., opinion filed June 16,

1894.

Jurisdiction in equitable action for specific performance of contract to convey land is in Superior Court. Hall v. Rice, 64 Cal. 443.

That Superior Court has not jurisdiction on appeal to try the case unless the justice's court had original jurisdiction. See Ballerino v. Bigelow, 90 Cal. 500.

The

Section 1664, Code of Civil Procedure, proceedings in the nature of an action to determine heirship. Not unconstitutional. Superior Court is properly given jurisdiction. Such proceedings clearly relate to "probate." In re Burton, 93 Cal. 459.

Jurisdiction in cases of unlawful detainer cannot be given to justice's courts by mere allegations in the complaint. The jurisdiction is in the Superior Court unless in fact the rental value does not exceed twenty-five dollars per month, and unless the damages claimed do not exceed two hundred dollars. ino v. Bigelow, 90 Cal. 500.

Baller

The Superior Courts are successors of the former county courts. Smith v. Hill, 89 Cal. 122, 128.

The jurisdiction of the Superior Court as to the amount of three hundred dollars is to be determined by reference to the ad damnum clause of the complaint. Where the demand

was for $362.84, the value of wheat, and $100.00 expended in pursuit of the property, the demand exceeded $300.00, and Superior Court had jurisdiction. Greenbaum v. Martinez, 86 Cal. 459. [Citing Dashiel v. Slingerland, 60 Cal. 653; Bailey v. Sloan, 65 Cal. 387, and Lord v. Goldberg, 81 Cal 599.]

The section is cited to effect that suit to foreclose a mortgage must be brought in the county where the land is situate, in Campbell v. West, 86 Cal. 197, and as to all liens, in Goldtree v. McAlister, 86 Cal. 93-105. And as to jurisdiction over corporation, in Nat. Bank v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. 491; Chase v. R. R. Co., 83 Cal. 468-473; Baker v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 73 Cal. 183.

Superior Courts are given jurisdiction, in the broadest terms, of actions in equity. Water Works v. San Francisco, 82 Cal. 286-305. As to actions relating to office, and in nature of quo warranto, in People v. Stanford, 77 Cal. 361. [Department opinion, p. 376.]

Complaint in justice's court for conversion, alleged the value of the property at two hundred and fifty dollars and alleged damages in the further sum of fifty dollars, the prayer being for two hundred and ninety-nine dollars. Demurrer to jurisdiction overruled, judgment for plaintiff according to prayer. Defendant appealed to Superior Court and renewed his demurrer. Overruled. Defendant then applied to Supreme Court to prohibit the Superior Court from proceeding with trial of the case. Held, the ad damnum clause of complaint, or

the value of the property, determined jurisdiction in favor of justice's court, and whether it had or not, the Superior Court had jurisdiction on appeal to try the case. Sanborn v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 425. [Contra, Ballerino v. Bigelow, 90 Cal. 500.]

A native of China is not entitled to naturalization, nor can such person, naturalized and admitted to practice as an attorney at law in the highest court of another state, be admitted to practice in the courts of this state. In re Hong Yen Chang, 84 Cal. 163.

An action to oust from office a person claiming to be a supervisor of San Francisco, and to recover the five thousand dollar penalty affixed by statute in such cases, is in the nature of quo warranto, and it is an action at law involving more than three hundred dollars, and the constitution gives the Superior Court jurisdiction, which is not affected by the provision of the consolidation act, making the supervisors judges of the election, etc., of their members. People v. Bingham, 82 Cal. 238.

The jurisdiction of Superior Courts in all such special cases as are "not otherwise provided for," includes cases of eminent domain on behalf of cities and towns. Bishop v. Superior Court, 87 Cal. 226.

Special proceedings under the act supplemental to the Wright Act [Stats. 1889, p. 212], providing for confirmation of organization of irrigation districts are proceedings in rem, and jurisdiction may be acquired by publication. Crall v. Board of Directors, 87 Cal. 684.

The misdemeanor of gaming being "provided for," [Sec. 330 Penal Code] the Superior Court has no jurisdiction to try the accused on an indictment or information for that offense. [Citing Green v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. 556; and see also People v. Joselyn, 80 Cal. 544; Ex parte Wallingford, 60 Cal. 103; Gafford v. Bush, 60 Cal. 149.] People v. Lawrence, 82 Cal. 182.

The Superior Court in San Francisco has no jurisdiction of misdemeanor of conspiracy. Such jurisdiction being vested in the police court, is otherwise provided for. The common law distinction between high and low misdemeanors has never been recognized in this state, and the legislature has power to vest exclusive jurisdiction over all misdemeanors in inferior courts. Green v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. 556.

A penalty "given by statute" and not exceeding $300, is within the jurisdiction of justices' courts whether its legality be questioned or not, it not being a tax, impost, assessment, toll or municipal fine. Thomas v. Justices' Court, 80 Cal. 40.

The constitution, in using the words "Superior Court," is dealing, not with individual Superior Courts as separate and distinct courts .and as county establishments, but with a state system of courts. That term is a collective

term.

Green . Superior Court, 78 Cal. 560. A case appealed from justices, court to Superior Court of the same county cannot be transferred to another county for trial on the ground

that defendant is a resident of the latter county. Gross v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. 382. Section 980 of Code of Civil Procedure purporting to authorize such transfer is unconstitutional. Luco . Superior Court, 71 Cal. v. 555.

These courts shall be always open (legal holidays and non-judicial days excepted) and terms of court are abolished and the legislative enactments are in harmony with the constitution. Sections 73-4, Code of Civil Procedure. In re Gannon, 69 Cal. 541.

A jury may be discharged on a legal holiday. [Secs. 134 C. C. P. and 1142 Penal Code.] The constitution does not prohibit all business in the Superior Court on legal holidays, excepting issuing injunctions 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, Code of Civil Procedure. City of Marysville . North Bloomfield, etc., Co., 66 Cal. 343.