9. It may be defined to be the judgment or conclusion of the Court upon any motion or proceeding. It means cases where a Court or Judge grants affirmative relief, and cases where relief is denied. Gilman v. Contra Costa County, 8 Cal. 57.

10. Cannot be attacked collaterally.-Where several persons were sued as members of a joint stock company, and the suit was discontinued as to B, one of the defendants, and judgment was taken against all the others, upon which execution was subsequently issued, and the property of one M., who was not a party to the suit, taken to satisfy the same: Held, that M. cannot, by a bill in equity against the plaintiff in the judgment, set it aside upon the ground that the discontinuance of the suit as to B. was a discontinuance as to all of the defendants. The judgment cannot be attacked in this collateral manner. Markley v. Rand, 12 Cal. 275.

11. The recital in a decree "that defendants had been regularly served with process, or had waived service by their acknowledgment," is sufficient evidence that the requisite proof was produced. In the absence of all evidence on this point, the presumption would be in favor of the jurisdiction of the Court, and of the regularity of its proceedings; and, for the want of such evidence, the decree cannot be impeached in a collateral action. Alderson v. Bell and Wife, 9 Cal. 315. 12. A decree cannot be impeached collaterally because entered prematurely. The remedy is by a direct proceeding in the action. Id.

13. Where a judgment was rendered by confession in open Court, upon an allegation of indebtedness and appearance of the parties, whatever errors intervened, they cannot, at the instance of one not a party to the judgment, be invoked to set aside or show the judgment a nullity. Cloud v. El Dorado County, 12 Cal. 128.

14. A judgment can be attacked in any form, directly or collaterally, for want of jurisdiction, but only by a direct proceeding against the judgment, in the Court which rendered it, or in an appellate Court, upon appeal from the judgment, when there is an irregularity in procuring jurisdiction. Whitwell v. Barbier, 7 Cal. 64. 15. The true test in such cases is, whether the omission complained of is of the substance of the act required to be performed. If of the substance, then the judgment is a nullity; if of form, only an irregularity. Id.

16. If a judgment is pronounced by a Court having jurisdiction, no matter how irregular it may be, it must stand, until set aside or reversed on appeal; but when entered by a mere ministerial officer without authority of law, it is void. Stearns V. Aguirre, 7 Cal. 448.

17. The Board of Supervisors of a county is a special tribunal with mixed powers, administrative, judicial and legislative, and jurisdiction over roads, ferries and bridges, is given to it by statute. Its judgments and orders cannot be attacked collaterally, any more than the judgments of Courts of Record. Waugh v. Chancey, 13 Cal. 12.

18. A decree of the Probate Court, ordering a claim to be paid, rendered on petition of the administrator, and without objection by him, is final and conclusive, and cannot be assailed collaterally, nor directly, on the ground that it was rendered on insufficient evidence. Estate of Cook, 14 Cal. 130; State v. McGlynn, 20 Id. 19. In suit in the District Court, on a bond given in the Court of Sessions for the appearance there of a party indicted for misdemeanor-the Court of Sessions having declared the bond forfeited for nonappearance-the sureties cannot defend on the ground that the judgment of forfeiture was erroneous. That judgment cannot be thus revised. People v. Wolf, 16 Cal. 385.

20. The judgment of the Supreme Court, being conclusive so long as it stands, cannot be attacked collaterally, on the ground that parties to it did not prosecute the appeal, but must be set aside, if at all, by a direct proceeding impeaching it for fraud. Bostic v. Love, 16 Cal. 72.

21. When it is, and is not, a bar.-A judgment upon demurrer is not always a bar to a subsequent action. It is so only where it determines the merits of the case. Robinson v. Howard, 5 Cal. 428.

22. Where the answer shows that the demurrer was to the validity of the contract which gave rise to the claim, and this averment is found to be true, as alleged, by the Judge at nisi prius, upon inspecting the record of the case, the judgment upon demurrer is a bar to the suit. Id.

23. A judgment of insolvency, where the Court had jurisdiction, if not reversed on appeal, is conclusive between the parties. Kohlman v. Wright, 6 Cal. 231.

24. A discharge in insolvency of a debt is equally a discharge of a judgment on that debt, and the costs, rendered between the time of filing the petition and schedule, and the time of final discharge. Imlay v. Carpentier, 14 Cal. 175.

25. To plead a former judgment in bar, it must appear, not only that it was upon the same action, but between the same parties. Chase v. Swain, 9 Cal. 136. 26. In a chancery case, when all the proofs are in, and the case fully before the lower and the appellate Court, the judgment of the latter is conclusive, where it passes upon the merits of the controversy; and on the reversal of the decree below, that Court can take no further proceedings, unless authorized by the appellate Court, except such as are necessary to give effect to its judgment. The whole matter is res adjudicata. Soule v. Dawes, 14 Cal. 249.

27. A judgment rendered upon a complaint radically defective, may be treated as a nullity. Reynolds v. Harris, 9 Cal. 338.

28. Power of the Court over judgments. In this State, no motion can be entertained by a District Court to set aside a judgment on any ground, including that of want of jurisdiction over the person of defendant in the action in which judgment was entered, after the expiration of the term in which it was entered, unless the jurisdiction of the Court is saved by some motion or proceeding at the time, except in the case provided for by the sixty-eighth section of the Practice Act. Bell v. Thompson, 19 Cal. 706; Suydam v. Pitcher, 4 Id. 280; Shaw v. McGregor, 8 Id. 521.

29. A Court may, in term time or vacation, order judgment on a verdict rendered and recorded, if the motion for new trial were taken under advisement. Hutchinson v. Bours, 13 Cal 50.

30. Validity and force, where no jurisdiction over the person.-A personal judgment of a Court of general jurisdiction is invalid for the purpose of acquiring any rights under it, when it appears affirmatively upon the face of the record that the Court had acquired no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Whitwell v. Barbier, 7 Cal. 63.

31. A judgment void for want of personal jurisdiction, is not cured by the appearance of the party for the purpose of vacating it. Gray v. Hawes, 8 Cal.

568.

32. As between parties and privies.-A judgment is of no force, except between the parties and privies. Beckett v. Selover, 7 Cal. 228.

33. A judgment record is only conclusive between the parties and their privies, except in some cases for specific purposes. Davidson v. Dallas, 8 Cal. 227.

34. A purchaser of land, subsequent to a suit brought against his vendors to quiet title, and to a notice of lis pendens filed in the County Recorder's office, is a mere volunteer, who takes subject to any decree in the suit. Gregory v. Haynes, 13 Cal. 494.

35. Alteration without notice.-An alteration of a judgment by the Court, without notice, so as to include a party not served with process, if not void, is voidable, at the election of the party. Chester v. Miller, 13 Cal. 561.

36. Where the Court makes an order requiring plaintiff to appear at a certain time, and show cause why a judgment in his favor should not be set aside, and it does not appear that a copy of the order was served on plaintiff or his attorney, or that any notice was given of the time at which the matter was to be heard, it is error for the Court to set aside the judgment, and its order to that effect will be reversed on appeal. Vallejo v. Green, 16 Cal. 161.

37. Judgment, how entered.-Where, in a suit to enforce a verbal contract for the sale of land-the complaint averring a balance of four hundred dollars to be due defendant when he should make a deed, and describing the land by its position with reference to adjoining tracts-a demurrer was put in, and being overruled, and defendant not answering, final judgment, by default, was entered for plaintiff-evidence being taken as to the contract by the referee-that plaintiff pay defendant three hundred dollars, the latter to make a deed of the land, which was described in the judgment by metes and bounds: Held, that the judgment is erroneous, both as to the amount adjudged due defendant and in describing the land by metes and bounds; that the judgment should have followed the complaint

in both these particulars, and that the departure is material and fatal. Holman v. Vallejo, 19 Cal. 498.

38. If the verdict of the jury fails to find the lien, the Court cannot render a judgment essentially different from the verdict, and the judgment so far will be reversed. Walker v. Hauss Hijo, 1 Cal. 186.

39. Where a man is sued by a fictitious name, and the return of the Sheriff on the summons shows service on the defendant by his proper name, as "John Doe, alias Westfall," a default being entered, judgment may be rendered against the defendant in his true name, Westfall, without proof that Doe and Westfall are the same. Curtis v. Herrick, 14 Cal. 117.

40. To authorize an arrest of the defendant upon execution issued upon a judgment recovered in an action upon contract, the fraud for which the arrest is sought must be alleged in the complaint, and be passed upon by the jury, and be stated in the judgment. Davis v. Robinson, 10 Cal. 411.

41. Judgment should be entered at once, when.-Where there is no question as to the proper judgment to be entered on a verdict, the judgment should be entered at once, without waiting for a motion for new trial. Hutchinson v. Bours, 13 Cal. 51.

42. A suspension of all proceedings under the judgment fully protects the losing party from all loss or injury, if from any cause the verdict be set aside or the judgment vacated. Id.

43. Judgments entered in vacation.-Where the Supreme Court reverses the judgment of a District Court, and directs the entry of a final judgment, such judgment can be entered by the Clerk of the District Court in vacation. McMillan v. Richards, 12 Cal. 467.

44. After appeal, the Court below loses control over the judgment.-Where a judgment is rendered, and an appeal taken to this Court, the Court below loses control over the judgment, and an order amending the judgment is erroneous. Bryan v. Berry, 8 Cal. 135.

45. Presumptions in favor of Courts of general jurisdiction, etc.-The presumption in favor of a judgment of a Court of general jurisdiction is overthrown, when the record of the entire case discloses a want of jurisdiction. Id. 569.

46. The appellate Court will presume in favor of the judgment of the Court below, unless the record clearly show error. Thompson v. Manrow, 2 Cal. 100; Kilburn v. Ritchie, 2 Id. 148; White v. Abernathy, 3 Id. 426; Johnson v. Sepulveda, 5 Id. 151; Grewell v. Henderson, 7 Id. 292; Nelson v. Lemmon, 10 Id. 50.

47. Effect of reversal of judgment.-Where an execution on a judgment for the recovery of money is not stayed by the undertaking on appeal required by statute for that purpose, a sale may be made on the execution, and the rights of purchasers are in no respect affected by the subsequent reversal of the judgment. Farmer v. Rogers, 10 Cal. 335.

48. If on sale under judgment, the plaintiff or his assignee buys in the property, he must restore it to the defendant on reversal of the judgment; otherwise, as to a stranger, a bona fide purchaser without notice. Reynolds v. Harris, 14 Cal. 680. 49. Where a party to a judgment has obtained any advantage through the judgment, he must restore that advantage to the other party if the judgment be afterward reversed. Id.

50. Identity of judgments.-A judgment was obtained against one John P. Manrow, in the city of New York, and an action was brought upon a judgment against one John P. Manrow, in the city of San Francisco; the identity of the person was held to be presumed. Thompson v. Manrow, 1 Cal. 428.

51. Attorney has no lien on a judgment. The attorney has no lien upon a judgment recovered by him in favor of his client for a quantum meruit compensation for his services; such lien extends only to costs given by statute. Ex parte Kyle, 1 Cal. 332; Mansfield v. Dorland, 2 Id. 509; Russell v. Conway, 11 Id. 103.

52. Interest on judgments.-A judgment rendered for use and occupation should not draw any interest whatever. Osborn v. Hendrickson, 8 Cal. 32.

53. Interest is not recoverable on a judgment in another State, without proof that the law of such State allows interest on judgments; at common law, judg ments do not carry interest. Thompson v. Manrow, 2 Cal. 100; Cavender v. Guild, 4 Id. 253.

54. In entering a judgment, the correct rule is to add the interest due on the note up to the time of the judgment to the principal, and enter the judgment for the gross amount, and such judgment is then to bear the same interest as the note until paid. Guy V. Franklin, 5 Cal. 417; Emeric v. Tams, 6 Id. 156.

55. When a judgment is entered upon the cognovit, and by its authority, then the amount acknowledged would have been the sum of the judgment; but where upon complaint and answer denying the allegations thereof, the acknowledgment is used as evidence, interest may be given in the judgment by way of damages. Hirschfield v. Franklin, 6 Cal. 607.

56. The provision of the statute on interest, which authorizes judgments to bear the same interest as the contracts on which they are recorded, was intended to be confined to contracts fixing the rate of interest. Raun v. Reynolds, 10 Cal. 19.

57. In a judgment in a suit on a note bearing an agreed amount of interest, the interest is to be computed and made a part of the judgment, and the judgment should bear the agreed interest. Mount v. Chapman, 9 Cal. 294.

58. When equity will, and will not, interfere.-An injunction will not be sustained to stay proceedings under a judgment obtained by neglect of party or counsel, where, if the neglect were excusable, full relief might have been had on motion in the original action. Borland v. Thornton, 12 Cal. 445.

59. An injunction will not lie to restrain the collection of a judgment against the plaintiff, on the ground that the judgment was for a balance of purchase money of land under covenant for a good title, while in fact the grantor had no title as long as the purchaser against whom the judgment was taken, and who seeks to enjoin it, remains in possession. Jackson v. Norton, 6 Cal. 189.

60. If a party enters judgment for too much, or before the whole amount is due, it is not conclusive, but only prima facie, evidence of fraud to avoid the judgment. Patrick v. Montader, 13 Cal. 442, overruling Taaffe v. Josephson, 7 Cal. 356.

61. Where a party moves for a new trial, and fails, he cannot on the same facts go into equity to enjoin the judgment rendered. Collins v. Butler, 14 Cal. 228. 62. To obtain the aid of chancery to vacate a judgment, a party must show that he has exhausted all proper diligence to defend in the suit in which judgment was rendered. Riddle v. Baker, 13 Čal. 304.

63. Courts of Equity are ever ready to grant relief from sales made upon their decrees, where there has been irregularity in the proceedings, rendering the title defective, as well when the purchaser or parties interested have been misled by a mistake of law as to the operation of the decree, as when they have been misled by a mistake of fact as to the condition of the property, or the estate sold, provided application be made to them in suits in which such decrees are entered, within a reasonable time, and the relief sought will not operate to the prejudice of the just rights of others. Goodenow v. Ewer, 16 Cal. 470.

64. The nature and extent of the relief in such cases are matter resting very much in the sound discretion of the Court. As a general rule, the purchaser will be released and a resale ordered, or such new or additional proceedings directed as may obviate the objections arising from those originally taken, when the consequences of the mistake are such that it would be inequitable, either to the purchaser or the parties, to allow the sale to stand. But when the relief is sought in one action from a purchase made upon a mistake of law as to the effect of a decree rendered in another action, it seems that the ordinary rules as to mistakes of law should apply, and from such Courts of Equity seldom relieve. Id.

§ 145. Judgment may be for or against one of the parties. Judgment may be given for or against one or more of several plaintiffs, and for or against one or more of several defendants; and it may, when the justice of the case requires it, determine the ultimate rights of the parties on each side, as between themselves. N. Y. Code, § 274.

1. Where two persons are sued jointly upon a joint contract, judgment may be rendered in favor of the plaintiff against one of the defendants and in favor of one of the defendants against the plaintiff. Thus, where A sued B and C as partners, and the misjoinder was not set up in the answer, and the plaintiff's demand was proved against B, but not against C, and verdict and judgment were given in favor of the plaintiff against B, and in favor of C against the plaintiff, on appeal the judgment was affirmed. Rowe v. Chandler, 1 Cal. 167.

2. Where it is clear that two or more defendants are not liable jointly, a joint judgment against both cannot be sustained, although each may be severally liable; so held in an action by a lessor against two subtenants of his lessee, when it appeared that the subtenants did not occupy any portion of the premises jointly. Pierce v. Minturn, 1 Cal. 470.

3. Where some of the defendants, partners, are not served with process, the plaintiff may proceed against those served. Ingraham v. Gildermester, 2 Cal. 88. 4. A covenant not to sue, made to a portion only of joint debtors, does not release any of them. Matthey v. Galley, 4 Cal. 64.

5. In an action against defendants jointly indebted, where one only is served, a several judgment may be entered against him. Hirshfield v. Franklin, 6 Cal. 607. 6. In an action brought jointly against two defendants, on a joint and several obligation, the entry of final judgment on default against one of the defendants is a discharge of the other. Stearns v. Aguirre, 6 Cal. 182.

7. In all cases of joint and several contracts, the plaintiff may elect whether he will sue the defendants severally or jointly; having elected to treat his demand as joint for the purposes of the action, he must be governed by the same rules which would have applied if his contract originally had been joint, and not joint and several; and it is clearly error to enter several judgments against the defendants.

Id.

8. Where two defendants are jointly sued, and service had on both, the Clerk of the Court has no authority to enter judgment by default against one; and his act in so doing is without color of law and void, and may be disregarded or set aside. Stearns v. Aguirre, 7 Cal. 449.

9. Where the plaintiff established his right to recover against both defendants, judgment should be entered against them. Id.

10. Where the obligors in a Sheriff's bond bind themselves jointly and severally in specific sums designated, they may all be joined in the same action, but separate judgments are required. People v. Edwards, 9 Cal. 286.

11. A judgment against one or more joint guarantors of a note bars the action against the others. When the contract is joint, and not joint and several, the entire cause of action is merged in the judgment. Brady v. Reynolds, 13 Cal. 31.

12. Equity has jurisdiction to vacate a judgment fraudulently altered, so as to include a defendant not served with process, and not originally included in the judgment. Chester v. Miller, 13 Cal. 558.

13. In suit against several defendants known as "Table Mountain Water Company," for possession of a ditch, the verdict was: "We find for the plaintiff and against L."-one of the defendants. Judgment was entered that defendant surrender possession of the ditch to plaintiff, and that plaintiff recover of L., “one of said defendants, the sum of, his costs," etc.: Held, that there is no error in the judgment; that it must be construed by the verdict, which is confined to plaintiff and L. Treat v. Laforge, 15 Cal. 41.

14. In suit against husband and wife for services rendered by plaintiff to the wife before her marriage, judgment may be entered against both defendants, with a direction that it be enforced only against the separate property of the wife and the common property of both. Van Maren v. Johnson, 15 Cal. 308.

15. Where, in an action against defendants jointly and not severally liable, a portion only of them are served with process, the Clerk cannot, on the application of plaintiff, enter judgment upon default against parties served only. A judgment so entered is void. Kelley v. Austin, 17 Cal. 564.

16. The proper course in such case is, to enter judgment against all the defendants, but so as to be enforced against the joint property of all and the separate property of those served. Id.

17. Where three persons are sued on a promissory note given by one of the parties in the name of all as partners, and the evidence fails to show the partnership, or the authority of the party making the note to bind all, and one of the parties is