§ 112.

2. -Amendment to amount over $300.— The superior court does not have jurisdiction, on an appeal from a justice's court in an action on a contract to recover less than three hundred dollars, to allow a complaint to be amended SO as to state a cause of action for a sum in excess of three hundred dollars.-Tracy v. Sumida, 31 Cal. App. 716, 161 Pac. 503.

3. Error in the allowance of such an amendment can not be reviewed by taking an appeal from the judgment of the superior court. Tracy v. Sumida, 31 Cal. App. 716, 161 Pac. 503.

§ 160.

1.

Holding court at request of governorConstruction of section. This section apparently makes a distinction between the disability of the judge to act and his disqualification to act for one of the causes mentioned in section 170; there being a marked distinction between the inability declared herein and the disqualification defined in section 170. This section can not be construed to refer to disqualification on account of interest in the matter involved in the proceeding.-Yolo Water & Power Co. v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. App. 589, 153 Pac. 394.

§ 170.

DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE. 1, 2. Construction-In general. 3-5. Subdivision 2.

6.

7-9.

10-18.

19, 20. 21-25.

1.

Construction-In general.-A judge to whom is presented an affidavit showing contemptuous conduct toward the court is not disqualified under this section to hear and determine the proceeding.-Hughes v. Moncur, 28 Cal. App. 462, 152 Pac. 968.

2. This section specifies what shall constitute a disqualification of a judge in a proceeding (which includes eminent domain proceedings) and when the fact of disqualification is made to appear, then as expressly provided in section 398, the disqualified judge has no discretion other than to perform the duty imposed upon him by this section.-Yolo Water & Power Co. v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. App. 589, 153 Pac. 394.

3. -Subdivision 2.-A director of a corporation is an officer within the meaning of subdivision 2 of section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that a judge is disqualified from sitting or acting in any action or proceeding where he is related to an officer of a corporation within the third degree.-Lynip v. Alturas School District, 29 Cal. App. 158, 155 Pac. 109.

4.

A judge is disqualified from sitting or acting in an action in which a bank is the real party in interest, where his brother is a director thereof, notwithstanding the action is brought in the name of a private individual.-Lynip v. Alturas School District, 29 Cal. App. 158, 155 Pac. 109.

5. Where, in such a proceeding, it is intended to question the corporate character of the bank, such objection should be made at the time of the motion, and where not so made its corporate character will be assumed.-Lynip v. Alturas School District, 29 Cal. App. 158, 155 Pac. 109.

6. --Time for objection.-Where there is nothing on the face of the record in advance of the trial to show that the judge was disqualified, and such disqualification is first disclosed on the cross-examination of the nominal plaintiff, a motion to disqualify the judge and to change the venue is timely and not too late.-Lynip v. Alturas School District, 29 Cal. App. 158, 155 Pac. 109.

7. -Subdivision 4-Matter tried on affildavits alone.-The matter must be tried upon affidavits alone. Inferences or presumptions arising from the judicial decision in nowise control. The judge must decide upon the facts averred in the affidavits, without reference to his own knowledge of his state of mind.-Keating v. Keating, 169 Cal. 754, 147 Pac. 974.

8.

The qualifications of a judge to preside in a case where sworn objection is made on the ground of his alleged prejudice must be tried on affidavits, and the judge must put in the form of an affidavit an account of his own state of mind, if his fairness is called in question. The other side is entitled to have the allegations of prejudice traversed by the judge's affidavit before there should be a decision on the motion. This right may, however, be waived. -Mercantile Trust Co. v. Sunset Road Oil Co., 173 Cal. 487, 160 Pac. 545.

9. Nondisqualification of the trial judge in a larceny case, as to bias and prejudice, is sufficiently sustained by affidavits of the deputy district attorney and of the trial judge contradicting the assertion of the defendant.-People v. Phillips, 30 Cal. App. 31, 157 Pac. 1003.

10. -Allegations and contents of affildavits. Where a party moving for a new trial seeks to disqualify the trial judge from hearing the motion on the ground of his bias and prejudice toward her and her cause of action, his affidavit denying any bias or prejudice is pertinent, and a motion to strike out such parts thereof as disclaim any bias or prejudice is properly denied.McEwen v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 172 Cal. 6, 155 Pac. 86.

11. Erroneous rulings against a litigant, even when numerous and continuous, form no ground for a charge of bias or prejudice, especially when they are subject to review. -McEwen v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 172 Cal. 6, 155 Pac. 86.

12. A judge's expressions of opinion uttered in what he conceives to be the dis

charge of his judicial duty are not evidence of bias or prejudice, and a remark made upon receipt of the verdict that he did not see how the jury could possibly have reached such verdict does not show prejudice.-McEwen v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 172 Cal. 6, 155 Pac. 86.

13. Inconsistency in the demeanor of the judge at the time when the verdict was returned with that at the time of the previous submission of the case to the jury after denying a motion for a directed verdict in favor of defendant does not prove prejudice.-McEwen v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 172 Cal. 6, 155 Pac. 86.

14. The suggestion of the trial judge that the motion for a new trial should be made on the minutes of the court does not show prejudice.-McEwen v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 172 Cal. 6, 155 Pac. 86.

15. The right to ask for a change of venue is both granted and limited by the terms of this subdivision. The moving party can not include with his statements concerning the judge who is about to try the case, an attack upon other judges of the court. In re Lapique, 26 Cal. App. 258, 146 Pac. 690.

16. An attorney, under section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has a legal right by affidavit to allege any facts showing the bias or prejudice of the judge against his client and thereby disqualify him from hearing the case; and if such facts are material to the issues and state just grounds for disqualification, the party can not be punished for contempt for inserting them in his affidavit, even though they may reflect upon the integrity and good faith of the judge.-Webb v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. App. 391, 152 Pac. 957.

17. The statement in an affidavit filed by an attorney alleging bias and prejudice on the part of the judge against his clients and objecting to his hearing the case, that such judge did advise and direct the attorney for the adverse party to prepare and serve the necessary legal notices upon his client, noticing a certain motion to rescind and set aside a certain order extending time to answer to the amended complaint, is pertinent to the issue of prejudice and bias, and no judgment of conviction for contempt for the insertion of such statement is warranted.-Webb v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. App. 391, 152 Pac. 957.

18. The statement, however, in such an affidavit that said judge "has been and now is unduly active in prospective litigation before this court" is not material to the issue, and the use thereof constitutes contempt of court, where it appears from the testimony of the affiant on the hearing of the contempt proceeding that he did not intend to charge "undue activity" only in the case then pending, but general misconduct of such character.-Webb v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. App. 391, 152 Pac. 957.

19. -Subdivision 5.- The phrase "provided for or approved by the reclamation board of the state of California" does not qualify all of the words including and fol

lowing the words "real property." It limits only the word "work."-Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Rector, 172 Cal. 385, 156 Pac. 506.

20. Construed in connection with section 397.-Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Rector, 172 Cal. 385, 156 Pac. 506.

21. --Amendment of 1915. -Constitutionality.-Subdivision 5 of section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1915, disqualifying judges from hearing causes involving real properties, easements, rights of way and the like, in their respective counties belonging to reclamation, levee, swamp land and drainage districts, and authorizing the governor to call in other judges to hear and determine such causes, is not unconstitutional as being a special law as to venue, as it expressly provides that nothing contained in the section "shall affect a party's right to a change of the place of trial in the cases provided for in title IV, part II, of the Code of Civil Procedure."-Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Rector, 172 Cal. 385, 156 Pac. 506.

22. Such code amendment is not unconstitutional as being a special law "regulating the practice in courts of justice," because it fails to include irrigation, sanitary, protection, water, lighting, and storm water districts and other public agencies, since such districts do not, as a rule, involve operations so vast in an engineering sense as the districts mentioned in the section, and therefore there exists a valid distinction for such classification.-Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Rector, 172 Cal. 385, 156 Pac. 506.

23. The rule undoubtedly is that any classification of the sort provided in such section must be founded upon some good reason and may not rest in the arbitrary will of the legislature, but it is also true that if good ground for the classification exists such classification is not void because it does not embrace within it every other class which might be included.-Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Rector, 172 Cal. 385, 156 Pac. 506.

24. Such code amendment is not invalid because it permits the parties to an action to waive the disqualification of the judge of the court of the county wherein the subject-matter of the suit lies. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Rector, 172 Cal. 385, 156 Pac. 506.

25. Such amendment is not invalid because but one drainage district measures up to its terms.-Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Rector, 172 Cal. 385, 156 Pac. 506.

§ 178.

1. Right to punish attorney.-The court has not the power to deny the right of a regularly licensed attorney, regularly employed by a litigant to represent him in the trial of a case, to participate in such trial, even though such attorney might at some time in the progress of the trial have been guilty of contumacious conduct, and to

1. Abbreviations Judicial notice.-Courts take judicial notice of the meaning of abbreviations of words commonly used. This is the rule in respect of courts and judicial officers, and is the rule applied in ascertaining the meaning of words shortened in common use by abbreviating them. Abbreviations form part of language and do not differ essentially in their nature from words which, like them, are themselves merely signs of thoughts.-Union Trust Co. v. Ensign-Baker Ref. Co., 29 Cal. App. 641, 157 Pac. 613.

2. The use of the abbreviations "Pres." and "Secy.," in designating the official capacities in which the president and secretary of the corporation maker signed a note, is sufficient to show official capacity.-Union

Trust Co. v. Ensign-Baker Ref. Co., 29 Cal. App. 642, 157 Pac. 613.

§ 187.

1.

Carrying jurisdiction into effect-Construction.-Jurisdiction in civil action includes the power to bring before the courts or in some reasonable way to give proper notice to the parties whose rights and interests are to be determined. If there were no enabling statutes prescribing a process to be used the courts could frame suitable writs and direct a reasonable mode of service.-McKendrick v. Western Zinc Min. Co., 165 Cal. 24, 130 Pac. 865.

2. Under this section where an election has been held under the Wyllie Act (Stats. 1911, p. 599), a contest thereunder is not an adversary proceeding. The court may provide a suitable procedure to furnish an interested person to appear at the hearing. Inasmuch as it is provided by law that any elector may contest the declared result of an election, it is implied that the court will permit any other elector to oppose such contest so far as necessary for a just and lawful disposition of that proceeding. Since the court has jurisdiction of the subjectmatter, and the necessary parties can be clearly designated, the authority given by this section includes the right to bring the necessary parties before the court by any suitable process which appears most conformable to the spirit of the code.-Roche v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. App. 255, 157 Pac. 830.

JUDICIA