Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1898-01-30

tlndIngS ON the questions submitted, and
the Court found said agreement to b. a
fuli and complete settlement of all the
property rights of said paroles in said es-
tite, III the proportion of one-half to the
petitioner, Mrs. Oscar j. Smith, and the
other half in equal shares to said respon-
dents, and ordered. adjudged and decreed.
that an undivided one-half Of all the
properly of said estate. describing it, and
including the community as well as the
separate property, real and personal, "be
amt the same is, hereby distributed. to
said Johanna Foley, John ID. Foley, Jere-
miah D. Foley, Edmund Foley and Anna
Foley, share and share alike, upon the ex-
ecntl"n of a bond by them,'' etc. FOR the
Payment TO w. Z. Griffin, administrator"
&C. "oi thr.r proportion of the debts OF
sad estate whenever required so to do.
ana or their proportion of the expenses
OF the administration of said esiatc."
From this decree Mrs. Oscar a.. :..nith
the surviving wife, appeals.
The record presents twenty-six assign
inehts of error. many of which have been
tiahorately and learnedly argued, and a
great number of citations of authorities
given by counsel of the respective par-
lies. While we find these arguments and
authorities are interesting and instruct
I'VE, we deem it not necessary to pass up
on manyo Of the questions presented and
discussed.
The paramount question is. whether the
Court, i'll q proceeding for the partial dis
trIbutlon of the estate of the decedent.
exceeded its authority in distributing TO
the respondents one-half of the whole es-
tate, or whether the decree so distribute
ing a part Of The community property is
erroneous?
Inc contention of counsel for appellant
is, substantially. that in such proceeding
no II but an heir, deviSee, or ~legafee j.
entitled to petition for, or have distribu-
ton made to him. and that the COur is
not clothed with legal authority to decree
distribution To any other class of lain
ans: that with respect to the commuuitv
property the respondents are not heirs,
devi~ecS or legatees, and hence, that in
devreeing distribution to them of a nor
ton of the community property, The
Court exceeded is jurisdiction and erred
IN giving said decree.
Respondents counsel maintain. in eff
feet, That ,he respondents being interested
IN the sS,tte under said agreement and rs
helrS. IA" statute gay them II right not
"ni, Je appear and resist the application
Of th2 .~%tItioner, but in addition, as heirs,
tn ,,..l.- C,- ];+ ,;I-,;,, -
that sand agreement constitutes a sale and
conveyance by each of these parties of all
righ,. tile and interest in an undivided
one-hali of the Foley estate, regardless of
Whether 1t was community or separate
property; that said agreement was a COM
PROMISE and settlement of all the cues
TONS that then existed, or might ever
exist, between the parties concerning the
property described in it; that the ag. ee-
ment embraces all the property, both
community and separate property; that
the Court had jurisdiction of said az ee-
ment, and Of the subject matter and of the
parties, and had authority to investigate
and determine the rights of the respect
i've parties as heirs, and their rights, I'M
der said agreement, and to make distrib-
ution accordingly, and that in so doing
the Cou did not exceed its jurisdiction.
or err therein.
But 1.-The Court may have jurisdiction
of the subject matter, and of the parties.
and yet the particular Judgment rendered
in the particular case may be void be
cause in excess of the jurisdiction of the
Court. The judgment rendered must be
one that is authorized by law in the class
of cases to which the case before the
Court belongs"
Works on Jurisdiction of Courts, Sec.
A Judgment may be both
and void (Id.).
In Windsor vs. Nc Weigh, SO U. s. 2s2,
the Court said: Though the Court NAV
possess jurisdiction of a cause, of the sub
ject matter, and of the parties, it is still
limited in its mode of procedure and in
the extent and character Of its judgment.
1t must act judicially in all things, and
canno hen transcend the power con
ferrd by law" .....
In 6 Pet. 69I GU. s. the Court defined
jurisdiction to be 1.-THE power TO hear and
~'lettIuline," and in Elk Parte Reed, 100 U.
s., Is, it is defined "the power to hear and
determine and give the Judgment rem
dered."" -&. -'~ .:.. f., ~. .
The inquiry then is, did the Court have
the power to hear and determine and give
the Judgment rendered with respect TO
the community property in this class Of
Cases or this cl,ass Of irr"ecd,n-~. Il i.ro-
c-eding for Tie PARTED .ii-tribuiinn -. tie
estaIeo
"Aithnugh District rpur,, a.. nrw
vested with juris,iirNnn OF ..r"jntte