Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1900-04-15
OPINION
By Belknap, J.

BY Belknap,J.
1t appears from the return To the writ |
that this action was brought to recover a |
judgment upon two contracts made by
the above named parties. one for SER
vices rendered by pl"rtiti to defendant
as superintendent OF his mine, and the |
other, for board furnished his workmen,
amounting in all to the sum of S3,O76.25.
Thereafter, and. during the tendency
of this actor, az action was commenced !
by defendant herein as plaintiff against !
plaintiff herein as defendant in the SUI |
periOr Court of the City Of San Fran
CISCO State of California to determine an
adverse claim made by defendant against
plaintiff for the sum of $3.076.25 and such
proceedings had as resulted in a judg
ment in favor of the defendant. plaintiff
herein, for the sum of S3,0b9.Q5 and costs
This Judgment was pleaded in a sup
Elemental answer. 1t was also alleged
that the cause of action in each case was
identical. Motion was made to dismiss
for the reason that the California judy
~ment was a bar to further proceedings
in the action and ousted the court of any
jurisdiction in the case save to dismiss
it, and evidence was introduced tending
to support the facts alleged. The motion
was denied and the court ,-Ioceeded TO
the trial Of the cause until stayed by
writ Of certiorari from this court ISSUED
al the instance of petitioner and deten-
dant
By the statute OF this State upon the
subject of certiorari we are restricted to
the consideration of the question Of the
jurisdiction of the court only. The pro-
vision o. the statute is as follows: the
review upon this writ shall not be extend :
ed further than to determine whether the
inferior tribunal. board or officer has
regularly pursued the authority of such
tribunal board or officer
(Sec. 3537, c. H.
The record shows that the court had
jurisdiction of the subject matter anu 81
the parties Jurisdiction having been ac-
uuired it had the right to determine the
question whether the facts stated III the
supplemental answer constituted bal
to further proceedings or not; and no
only had the court the right to decide the
question, but it was it's duty to decide il
If it erred in its determination, the error
is not an excess of jurisdiction, and ma,
be corrected by the usual mode for the
correction Of errors.
The boundary between an error o
Judgment and the usurpaton of powe
is this: The former is reversible by al
aprellate court within a certain hXe'
time, and is. therefore, only voidablt
while the latter is an absolute nullity
and when jurisdiction once attaches pre-
ceedings thereafter in the litigation
though erroneous, cannot operate to al
vert it, but the Judgment is binding III
til reversed. This principle has bee
laii down in the forcible expression tina
the power to decide necessarily carrie
with 1t the power to decide wrongly 8
wei as rightly, and is subject to the gu;
ification that the court can render oni
such judgment as does not transcend !
extent or character the law which is al
plicable to that class Of cases. L Enc
Pl and Pr. 49,
Illustrations of the above mentione
qualification were given by Judge flel
IN prom ouncing the judgment in Wilso
vs.. McNeigh, 90 I. 5. 2o2, in this la'
guage: "If the action be upon mone
demand the court Notwithstanding /
conplete jurisdiction over the subje'
and the parties has no power to pa
judgment of imprisonment in the pei
Tertiary UPON the defendant. If Il
action be for libel or personal tort, Il
court cannot order in the case specii