than three hundred dollars. (Heinlen v. Phillips, 88 Cal. 557, 26 Pac. 366. Bienenfeld v. Fresno etc. Co., 82 Cal. 425, 22 Pac. 1113, overruled.)

The supreme court has no jurisdiction of an appeal from the superior court in an action commenced in the justice's court under section 1206 of the Civil Code, whether the action be viewed as a suit in equity to enforce a lien upon personal property, or an action at law for wages due. (Edsall v. Short, 122

Cal. 533, 55 Pac. 327.)

The fact that the defendant in an action in a justice's court sets up a counterclaim in excess of three hundred dollars does not give the supreme court jurisdiction on appeal. (Maxfield v. Johnson, 30 Cal. 545.)

A proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto to try the title to a public office, where the court can impose a fine of five thousand dollars, is a case at law in which the demand amounts to three hundred dollars. (People v. Perry, 79 Cal. 105, 21 Pac. 423; People v. Bingham, 82 Cal. 238, 22 Pac. 1039.)

Real property.-Where a case is certified to the superior court from the justice's court on the ground that it involves the title or possession of real property, the supreme court has jurisdiction on appeal, although no question is raised on that subject on the appeal. (Baker v. Southern Cal. Ry. Co., 110 Cal. 455, 42 Pac. 975.)

A mere statement by counsel that a case involves the title or possession of real property is not sufficient to give the supreme court jurisdiction. (Raisch v. Sausalito Land etc. Co., 131 Cal. 215.)

The supreme court has jurisdiction of an action for the usurpation of a franchise for a toll road, since the right to the possession of real property is involved. (People v. Horsley, 65 Cal. 381, 4 Pac. 384.)

The supreme court has jurisdiction in actions for damages to real property, when the title thereto is involved, although the damages claimed are less than three hundred dollars. (Doherty v. Thayer, 31 Cal. 140.)

Fines. A fine imposed by a county court for wrongfully demanding and collecting toll, is not a municipal fine. (People v. Johnson, 30 Cal. 98.)

On the trial of a criminal action for wrongfully collecting toll, the legality of the fine to be imposed in case of a conviction is not involved. (People v. Johnson, 30 Cal. 98.)

Special cases.-The supreme court has jurisdiction of an appeal from an order discharging an insolvent. (Fisk v. His Creditors, 12 Cal. 281.)

An arbitration is a special proceeding. (Fairchild v. Doten, 42 Cal. 125.)

A proceeding to condemn land for the use of a railroad company is a "special case." (Stockton etc. Co. v. Galgiani, 49 Cal. 139.)

Special orders.-The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction of all special orders made after final judgment in the superior court, without reference to the amount involved. (Southern Cal. Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, 127 Cal. 417, 59 Pac. 789; Harron v. Harron, 123 Cal. 508, 56 Pac. 334. Langan v. Langan, 83 Cal. 618, 23 Pac. 290; and Fairbanks v. Lampkin, 99 Cal. 429, 34 Pac. 101, overruled.)

A special order after judgment, refusing to strike out a cost-bill in the superior court in a case appealed from the justice's court, is not appealable to the supreme court, although the cost-bill amounts to over three hundred dollars. (Henigan v. Ervin, 110 Cal. 37, 42 Pac. 457.)

An order for twenty-five dollars each month alimony, being a continuing order, may be reviewed upon appeal. (Langan v. Langan, 86 Cal. 132, 24 Pac. 852. See Harron v. Harron, 123 Cal. 508, 56 Pac. 334.)

Criminal cases.-The supreme court has jurisdiction in criminal cases upon questions of law alone. (People v. Logan, 123 Cal. 414, 56 Pac. 56; People v. Kuches, 120 Cal. 566; 52 Pac. 1002; People v. Smallman, 55 Cal. 185; People v. Williams, 21 Cal. Dec. 788.)

The propriety of a conviction on the evidence becomes a question of law only when there is a clear failure of proof. (People v. Kuches, 120 Cal. 566. 52 Pac. 1002; People v. Smallman, 55 Cal. 185.)

The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction of all misdemeanors prosecuted by indictment or information. (People v. Jordan, 65 Cal. 644, 4 Pac. 683, prescribing a method for taking such appeals.)

Under the former constitution, the supreme court had no jurisdiction in criminal cases, except such as amount to felony. (People v. Apgar, 35 Cal. 389; People v. Johnson, 30 Cal. 98; People v. Shear, 7 Cal. 139; People v. Vick, 7 Cal. 165; People v. Applegate, 5 Cal. 295.)

The supreme court has jurisdiction of an appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to an indictment for misconduct in office. (People v. Kalloch, 60 Cal. 113.)

The supreme court has jurisdiction of an appeal in a criminal case, although the lower court had no jurisdiction. (People v. Pingree, 61 Cal. 141.)

The supreme court has no jurisdiction of an appeal from a judgment of a superior court, affirming a judgment of the police court, adjudging a defendant guilty of a misdemeanor, and imposing a fine of fifty dollars, it not being "a criminal case prosecuted by indictment or information in a court of record." (People v. Meiggs' Wharf Co., 65 Cal. 99, 3 Pac. 491.)

Under the former constitution the jurisdiction of the supreme court in criminal cases on defendant's appeal was not to be determined by the offense charged, but by the offense of which the defendant was convicted. (People v. Apgar, 35 Cal. 389.)

Probate. The supreme court has jurisdiction of only such appeals in probate matters as are provided by law. (Estate of Walkerly, 94 Cal. 352, 29 Pac. 719; Estate of Ohm, 82 Cal. 160, 22 Pac. 927; Estate of Moore, 86 Cal. 58, 24 Pac. 816; Estate of Winslow, 128 Cal. 311, 60 Pac. 931; Estate of Wittmeier, 118 Cal. 255, 50 Pac. 393.)

An order compelling an administratrix to allow her name to be used by a creditor of the estate is a probate matter within the meaning of this section, and, not being one in which an appeal is provided by law, no appeal lies. (Estate of Ohm, 82 Cal. 160, 22 Pac. 927.)

Divorce. An action for divorce is a case in equity within the meaning of this section. (Sharon v. Sharon, 67 Cal. 185, 7 Pac. 456, 8 Pac. 709; Cassidy v. Sullivan, 64 Cal. 266, 28 Pac. 234.)

The supreme court has jurisdiction of an appeal in an action for divorce. (Conant v. Conant, 10 Cal. 249.)

Liens.-Under the former constitution, prior to the amendments of 1862, the supreme court had no jurisdiction of an action to foreclose a mortgage or mechanic's lien when the amount involved did not exceed two hundred dollars. (Poland v. Carrigan, 20 Cal. 174.) Otherwise, since those amendments. (Willis v. Farley, 24 Cal. 490, 499.)

Writs. The language of the present constitution giving the supreme court power to "issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and habeas corpus, and all other writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of the appellate jurisdiction," has the same meaning as the language in the former constitution giving it power to "issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, and also all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction." Thus construed, the section gives the court original jurisdiction to issue the writs specially named. (Hyatt v. Allen, 54 Cal. 353.),

The writ of prohibition mentioned in this section is the writ of prohibition as known to the common law, and its office is to restrain subordinate courts and inferior judicial tribunals from exceeding their jurisdiction. (Maurer v. Mitchell, 53 Cal. 289.)

The legislature cannot enlarge or extend the office of the writs mentioned in this section. (Camron v. Kenfield, 57 Cal. 550; Farmers' Union v. Thresher, 62 Cal. 407; Hobart v. Tillson, 66 Cal. 210, 5 Pac. 83.)

In issuing writs of mandamus or other prerogative writs, the supreme court and the several superior courts are peers-each having original jurisdiction; and a determination thereon by a superior court is conclusive upon the supreme court, except on appeal. (Santa Cruz etc. Co. v. Santa Clara, 62 Cal. 40.)

The supreme court will not entertain an application for a writ of mandamus, or other prerogative writ, where the petition shows no sufficient reason why the application was not made to the superior

court. (Menzies v. Board of Equalization, 62 Cal. 179.)

The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction in cases of mandamus. (Palache v. Hunt, 64 Cal. 473, 2 Pac. 245.)

The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction in a proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto. (People v. Perry, 79 Cal. 105, 21 Pac. 423.)

The supreme court may exercise its appellate jurisdiction by means of the writs mentioned in this section. (People v. Turner, 1 Cal. 143.)

Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the district court to restore an attorney whose name has been stricken from the rolls by the order of such court. (People v. Turner, 1 Cal. 143.)

Prior to the amendment of 1862, the supreme court could issue writs of certiorari, etc., only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (Miliken v. Huber, 21 Cal. 166; Ex parte Attorney General, 1 Cal. 85.)

Under the amendment of 1862, the supreme court had jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, etc., without reference to its appellate jurisdiction. (Tyler v. Houghton, 25 Cal. 26; Miller v. Supervisors, 25 Cal. 93.)

The district courts had jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate regardless of the amount involved. (Cariaga v. Dryden, 30 Cal. 244.)

The jurisdiction of the supreme court in cases of certiorari does not depend upon the amount in controversy. (Winter v. Fitzpatrick, 35 Cal. 269.)

The writ of certiorari can be rightfully issued only upon an order of the court, made upon application for that purpose, and not upon an order of the justices of the court as such, or any of them. (Smith v. Oakland, 40 Cal. 481.)

Miscellaneous.-The supreme court has no jurisdiction of an appeal from a judgment in a proceeding under section 772 of the Penal Code, for the removal of public officers. (In re Curtis, 108 Cal. 661, 41 Pac. 793; Wheeler v. Donnell, 110 Cal. 655, 43 Pac. 1.)

The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction of an appeal in a civil proceeding to remove an officer. (Morton v. Broderick, 118 Cal. 474, 50 Pac. 644.)