Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1916-12-29

to be enforced, exclusive OF interest,",
does not exceed three hundred dol
lars.
Stats. 1913, chap. 235, p. 360.) There
is no doubt in my mind but that the
judgment in favor OF Phillips and
against the defendants is valid, for
the reason that jurisdiction having
been acquired by the Justice of the
Peace, it was not lost by his making
an order which he had no power to
make. Certainly the making of an or.
der which was void could not operate
so as to GUST the court of a case OF
which it had jurisdiction.
In the opinion of the Court the re-
marks of Mr.. Banks, a member OF the
constitutional conventioh are quoted,
wherein he stated that in cases which
had arisen in California (similar to
the one at BARI the practice was to
transfer them to a court of compe-
tent jurisdiction. am unable
to fipd that Ju3tices Of the
Peace in California had juris-
diction to foreclose mechanics liens
on real estate prior to the date of the
holding of our constitutional conven-
ton in 1864. The jurisdiction of JUS
tees Of the Peace in California was
fixed by an act entitled, IAN Act on
corning the Courts of Justice Of this
May 70, 1853. Comp. Laws Cal. 1853,
p. 1881 Section 81 of the act men,
toned enumerates the subjects over
which Justices Of the Peace should
have jurisdiction, but the foreclosure
of mechanics liens is not one of them.
Section 60 reads:
"The jurisdiction conferred by the
last section shall not extend, how
cver-Ist. To I'd.
Nor to an action for the foreclosure
if a mortgage or the enforcement of
a lien on real property.
1t is therefore obvious that there
never could have been such a prac-
tice in California. Mr.. Banks prob
ably had in mind a provision contain
ed in section 58l of an act of Cali
fornia entitled, can Act to regulate
proceedings in civil cases, in the
Courts of Justice OF this State" pass
ed April u, 1851, Comp. Laws Cal
1853, PIP. 623, 624,) wherein it is pro-
vided that in actions in the Justice OF
the Peace court. if it Shall appear tina,
the title of real estate is involved,
the proceedings shall be suspended
and the case certified to the District
Court. We have such a provision in
Nevada (Rev. Laws sec. 572l). but
! do not think any one would contend
that authority is given under that act
to certify up a mechanics lien suit
1t is an elementary rule that courts OF
Justice of the Peace are of spe>ia'
and limited jurisdiction and that they
must look to the statute for Their
authority to act. Since there is nc
Sfntf,fpry prNu,N, - = J,.1
tees Of the peace to certify to the
at bar, | am of the opinion that an,
such order would be void. paul VS.
Armstrong, l New. 81; Corthell vs.
Mead. 10 Colo. 391; Storey VS.. Muel
Ter, l31 Pac. 764; Is Am. & Eng
Ency. Of Law cd ed.), p. ~
Not outstanding the fact that thu
Dahlstrom and Amedeo Judgment
were void, the entire case was appeal
ed to the District court. All of thu
matters which were considered an
acted upon by the Justice Of tn
Peace were within the original Juris
diction of the District Court. If tn,
Phillips suit had been commence
in the District Court instead Of in tn
Justice Court, there is no question
but that Dahlstrom and Amedic coul
have interviewed and a valid judgmer
have been rendered in favor of all O
the parties. If Dahlstrom and Anne
dec had not undertaken to ~intcrven
in the Justice Court, and judgmen
had been entered in hat court 70
Phillips, and an appeal had been tax
en- by the defendants, we see no reas
on why Dahlsrom and Amedeo coul
not have interviewed in the Distric
Court. I'm fact, as l view the situa
ton, that, in legal effect, is what mus
be held to have ocVurred; for tn
matter stood, when it reached tn
District Court on appeal, as thong
there had been no intervention, as tn
Justice of the Peace had no power t
authorize such procedure.
Hence, ] am of the opinion tina
ince appellants went to trial in tn
District Court upon the theory tina
Dahlstrom and Amedeo were in fac
intervenors, it is too late for them t
urge their objection in this cour 70
the first time. (McKenty vs.. Glad
win, 10 Gala. 227; Smith VS.. Penn,
a. Cal. l6l; People VS.. Refs, rs Ca
2oo; Sanxey VS.. Iowa City Glass Co
63 la. 707.)
Holding the views expressed, 7 ar
OF the opinion that the plaintiff Phi
lips should recover judgment for cost
in both Justice and the Distric
Courts.
COLEMAN. J.
Filed, October %. 1916.
. r. MIGHELS, Clerk.
-oo--