JURISDICTION ing on the statement in Story's work on Equity Pleading that a bill must state a case within the jurisdiction of a court of equity, said that the author was doubtless speaking of jurisdiction in the strict sense in which it is understood in courts of law and as applicable to a certain class of cases in equity which under no circumstances are cognizable in a court of equity, such as would be a bill to recover damages for a slander or for an assault and battery, which are wholly foreign to equity jurisdiction. That is not the case here. Courts of equity have power to construe wills and declare the titles of litigants under them, and the subject is not foreign to the jurisdiction of such courts. The power, however, ought not to be exercised except under certain conditions, and it is error to assume jurisdiction where there is an adequate remedy at law. A court of equity will not entertain a bill for the construction of a will which only deals with or disposes of purely legal estates and which makes no attempt to create any trust relation with respect to property devised. Strubher v. Belsey, 79 Ill. 307; Harrison v. Owsley, 172 Ill. 629; Longwith v. Riggs, 123 Ill. 258; Minkler v. Simons, 172 Ill. 323; Mansfield V. Mansfield, 203 Ill. 92; Fletcher v. Root, 240 Ill. 429; Miller v. Rowan, 251 Ill. 348, 349, 350. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and letermine the subject-matter in controversy between the parties to a suit. If the law confers the power to render a judgment or decree, then the court has jurisdiction. State of Rhode Island v. State of Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657; United States v. Anedondo, 6 Pet. 709; Grignon's Lessees v. Astor, 2 How. 338; Applegate v. Lexington Mining Co., 117 U. S. 267. Jurisdiction does not depend apon the rightfulness of the decision. It is not lost because of an erroneous decision, however erroneous that decision may be. Scherer v. Superior Court, 96 Cal. 653; Young v. Lorain, 11 Ill. 624; Lane v. Bommelman, 17 Ill. 95; Cody v. Hough, 20 Ill. 43; Iverson v. Loberg, 26 Ill. 179; Feaster v. Fleming, 26 Ill. 457; Hobson v. Ewan, 62 Ill. 146; Spring v. Kane, 86 Ill. 580; Allman v. Taylor, 101 JURISDICTION Ill. 185; St. Louis and Sandoval Coal Co. v. Sandoval Coal Co., 111 Ill. 32; Reid v. Morton, 119 Ill. 118; Commercial Nat. Bank v. Burch, 141 Ill. 519; State ex rel. v. McMahon, 69 Minn. 265; People ex rel. v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559. Franklin Union v. People, 220 Ill. 366, 367. See, also, O'Brien v. The People, 216 Ill. 363, 364. Jurisdiction is authority to hear and determine a cause-authority to decide. It is the power conferred by law to hear and determine controversies concerning certain subjects, and as applied to the particular controversy it is the power to hear and determine that controversy. 11 Cyc. 660; People v. Talmadge, 194 Ill. 67. If a court has jurisdiction its judgment may be directly attacked for errors or irregularities, but however manifestly erroneous the decision may be, it is binding until reversed or set aside in a direct proceeding for that purpose. The exercise of the jurisdiction may be erroneous, but if the court has authority to decide the case at all, every party brought within the jurisdiction must make his defense, and the judgment can only be set aside by appeal or on error, when such a remedy is available. Sumner v. Village of Milford, 214 Ill. 393. "Jurisdiction is the power vested by the law in a tribunal to hear and determine causes properly coming before such tribunal. Final means last; conclusive; pertaining to the end. Bouvier's Law Dict. By conferring upon the county court "final jurisdiction," the jurisdiction of all other courts subsequent to the determination in the county court is ex vi termini excluded. The language of the statute is not that such district court shall have power, in such cases, to enter final judgment, but it shall have final jurisdiction. If the term 'final judgment' had been used, the right to appeal, in view of the general provisions of the code, could scarcely be questioned. Between judgment and jurisdiction there is a wide and clear distinction. The one is the decision of the law given by the court as the result of proceedings therein instituted; the other has reference to the power conferred to take cognizance of and deter JURISDICTION mine causes according to law and carry the same into execution." Saylor v. Duel, 236 Ill. 432, 433. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the subject-matter in controversy between the parties to a suit, and jurisdiction as thus defined does not mean simply jurisdiction of a particular case but jurisdiction of a class of cases to which the particular case belongs. Whether a complaint does or does not state a cause of action, is, so far as concerns the question of jurisdiction, of no importance, for if it states a case over which the authority of the court extends, then jurisdiction attaches and the court has power to decide whether the pleading is good or bad. O'Brien v. The People, 216 Ill. 354; People v. Kizer, 151 Ill. App. 11, 12; Franklin Union v. People, 220 Ill. 363, 364; Hunt v. Hunt, 72 N. Y. 217; Winningham v. Trueblood, 149 Mo. 572. The test of jurisdiction is, whether the tribunal had power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether its methods were regular, its findings right, or its conclusions in accordance with the law. Van Vleet on Collateral Attack, 82; Johnson v. Miller, 50 Ill. App. 70. See, also, Johnson v. Miller, 55 Ill. App. 176. Jurisdiction has been defined to be: "The power to hear and determine a cause. It is coram judice whenever a case is presented which brings this power into action." Bush v. Hanson, 70 Ill. 480; United States v. Anedando, 6 Pet. 709; Schroeder v. Mer. & Mechanics' Ins. Co., 104 Ill. 76. See, also, Kelly v. The People, 115 Ill. 589; Dilworth v. Curts et al., 139 Ill. 516; Schmidt v. Pierce, 17 Ill. App. 524. Jurisdiction over a subject-matter is given the court by the law. Jurisdiction over the parties to the suit is obtained in the manner provided by law in each form of action. It is had as to the plaintiff by the bringing of the suit, and as to the defendant it may be acquired by service of summons upon him, or by his entering a general appearance in the cause, or by a general demurrer to the declaration, or by pleading in bar. Christie v. Walker, 126 Ill. App. 427. "Jurisdiction is the power to hear and JURISDICTION determine the subject-matter in controversy between parties to a suit, to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them; the question is, whether, in the case before a court, their action is judicial or extra-judicial; with or without the authority of law to render a judgment or decree upon the rights of the litigant parties. If the law confers the power to render a judgment or decree, then the court has jurisdiction; what shall be adjudged between the parties, and with which is the right of the case, is judicial action, by hearing and determining it." State of Rhode Island v. State of Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 720; People v. Seelye, 146 Ill. 221. "Jurisdiction to be rightfully exercised must be founded either upon the person being within the territory or the things being within the territory. No sovereignty can extend its powers beyond its own territorial limits to subject either persons or property to its judicial decisions." Story on Conflict of Laws, sec. 539. "A foreign court cannot by its judgment or decree pass the title to land situate in another country; neither can it bind such land by a judgment or decree that in default of the defendants in the suit conveying, it shall be conveyed by the deed of its own officers to the plaintiffs." Ibid., sec. 543; Courtney v. Henry, 114 Ill. App. 639. "Jurisdiction of the tribunal does not depend upon actual facts alleged, but upon authority to determine the existence or non-existence of such facts and to render judgment according to its findings." Bailey on Jurisdiction, sec. 2; The People v. Superior Court, 234 Ill. 199. See, also, People v. Zimmer, 252 III. 25. "If the jurisdiction of the court extended over that class of cases, it was the province of that court to determine for itself whether any particular case of that class was within its jurisdiction, and whether the court decided correctly or not cannot be inquired into in a collateral proceeding. If error is committed in that regard it can only be taken advantage of by appeal or writ of error." Gardner v. Maroney, 95 Ill. 552; O'Connor v. Board of Trustees, 247 Ill. 59. JURISDICTION Jurisdiction in a particular case is not only the power of the court to hear and determine but also the power to render the particular judgment entered. People v. Simon, 284 Ill. 28. Jurisdiction in controversies between litigants includes jurisdiction of the person. Oakman v. Small, 282 Ill. 360. Of Subject Matter. error Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is the power to adjudge concerning the general question involved, and if a bill states a case belonging to a general class over which the authority of the court extends, the jurisdiction attaches and no committed by the court can render the judgment void, and the judgment, however erroneous, is not void but is binding upon the parties until reversed or annulled and is not open to collateral attack. Kuzak v. Anderson, 267 Ill. 613. JURISDICTION Jurisdiction of the Person. The authority, obtained by the service of a summons or by other proper notice, or by an appearance, to render a personal judgment. People v. Harper, 244 Ill. 122. How Acquired. "Jurisdiction is acquired in one of two modes: first, as against the person of the defendant, by service of process; or, secondly, by a proceeding against the property of the defendant, within the jurisdiction of the court. In the latter case, the defendant is not personally bound by the judgment beyond the property in question." Patterson et al. v. Lynde et al., 112 Ill. 206. "Jurisdiction is acquired by service of process, by publication, or by an entry of appearance, in person or by attorney. In the last case, the authority of the attorney to enter an appearance may be contested by the defendant, and if he shows a want of authority it defeats the Gardner v. jurisdiction of the court." 644; Bunn, 132 Ill. 403, citing White v. Jones, 38 Ill. 161. The power to adjudge concerning the general question involved. Christian Hospital V. People, 125 Ill. App. People v. Harper, 244 Ill. 123; Miller v. Rowan, 251 Ill. 348. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the subject-matter in controversy between the parties to a suit. If the law confers the power to render a judgment or decree then the court has jurisdiction. "Jurisdiction of the particular matter does not mean simple jurisdiction of the particular case then occupying the attention of the court, but jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular case belongs." O'Brien v. People, 216 Ill. 363; O'Connor v. Board of Trustees, 247 Ill. 58; Davis v. Jacksonville & P. Ry. Co., 180 Ill. App. 13; Franklin Union v. People, 220 Ill. 366; State v. Wolover, 127 Ind. 306; Jackson v. Smith, 120 Ind. 520; Fields v. Maloney, 78 Mo. 172; Dowdy v. Wamble, 110 Md. 280. In the saying that an injunctional order is good until set aside if the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter, "jurisdiction" refers to the existence or non-existence of judicial power, and the word "subject-matter" to such subjects between the parties. Cline v. Whitaker, 144 Wis. 439, 442, 129 N. W. 400. In Equity. It is common to speak of jurisdiction in equity or the jurisdiction of a court of equity as not relating to the power to hear and determine a cause, but as to whether it ought to assume the jurisdiction and hear and decide the cause, and so used, the term refers to equity and not to power. Miller v. Rowan, 251 Ill. 349. "It is elementary law, that the subject of the jurisdiction of the court of chancery is civil property. The court is conversant only with questions of property and the maintenance of civil rights. Injury to property, whether actual or prospective, is the foundation on which the jurisdiction rests. The court has no jurisdiction in matters merely criminal or merely immoral, which do not affect any right of property. Nor do matters of a political character come within the jurisdiction of the court of chancery. Nor has the court of chancery jurisdiction to interfere with the public duties of any department of the government, except under special circumstances, and JURY where necessary for the protection of Indictment-"State" Synonymous. An indictment under section 272 of division 1 of the Criminal Code charging that defendant caused witness to depart from the "jurisdiction" of the court uses the word "jurisdiction" as synonymous with the word "state," used in the stat- ute. Tedford v. People, 219 III. 27. Creation of Inferior Courts. The word "jurisdiction," as used in sec- tion 1 of article 5 of the Constitution of 1848, empowering the General Assembly to establish inferior local courts of civil and criminal "jurisdiction," relates to the exercise of those powers only which are judicial in their nature, and does not in- clude a power to authorize a guardian to sell the real estate of his ward. Reid v. Morton, 119 Ill. 130. Number. JURY. In the absence of qualification the word A city charter providing that assess- ments for improvements authorized in the charter may be made "either by a jury, or by commissioners," etc., means, by the word "jury," a jury of twelve men, and gives the city no authority to have such assessments made by a jury of six men. A body of twelve citizens, duly qualified to serve on juries, empanneled and sworn That the term "jury," without addi- The jury contemplated by that pro- JUST AND REASONABLE Constitution. The term "jury," as used in section 13 juries, one class of less than twelve men the other class of twelve men in other judicial tribunals. Hermanek v. Guth- Justices and Constables Act. The word "jury," used in section 12 of article 18 of the Justices Act, relating to imprisonment for nonpayment of fines, refers to juries such as are empaneled under the laws applicable to justices of the peace, and in such case means a jury JUS PRIVATUM. The king's private property in the soil JUS PUBLICUM. The right to have the water kept free from obstructions for the purpose of nav- Section 24 of the Practice Act of 1874, providing that in civil suits amendments It is urged that the words "just before and at the time of receiving his alleged injuries," limit too closely the time within which the plaintiff is required to have exercised ordinary care. This objection is hypercritical. The jury could have no difficulty in understanding the time meant. They, without doubt, understood the time when care was required of the plaintiff to be, not when the wheel of the trailer was actually passing over him, but when the events occurred causing his injury. That is the ordinary meaning of the words used. The few seconds in which the whole transaction took place are covered by the words "just before and at the time of receiving his alleged injuries." "The words 'at the time,' as used in the instruction, refer to the whole transaction or series of circumstances, from the time the plaintiff reached the tracks to the time when he was injured, leaving it to the jury to determine whether he used due care before he stepped upon the unoccupied track and while he stood there." Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Johnsen, 135 Ill. 641; McNulta v. Lockridge, 137 Ill. 270; Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. v. Fisher, 141 Ill. 614; Peterson v. Chicago Traction Co., 231 Ill. 327, 328. JUST BEYOND. The term "just beyond," when used with reference to distance from a specified point, means barely beyond, scarcely JUST COMPENSATION beyond, closely beyond the point but with the least practical interval. Carroll v. Cave Hill Cemetery Co., 172 Ky. 204. JUST COMPENSATION. Just compensation "is the loss sustained in dollars and cents, and the amount, not necessarily with precision and accuracy, but approximately; and if damage is shown, but the amount is not approximately proved, there can be no more than nominal damages allowed." Peoria and Pekin Union Railway Co. v. Peoria and Farmington Railway Co., supra; C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Town of Cicero, 157 Ill. 56. The compensation which the law requires to be made is that which is "just." This means that the sum allowed and paid the owner whose property is taken, shall be equivalent to the value of that of which he has been deprived. It would be unjust to allow him more than will compensate his loss. C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Goodwin et al., 111 Ill. 283. Possible or imaginary uses are to be excluded. Nor can the owner show the probable future use of the property. Pierce on Railroads, 217; Jones v. Chicago and Iowa Railroad Co., 68 Ill. 380; Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 149 Ill. 457; Lewis on Eminent Domain, 48; Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Town of Cicero, 157 Ill. 48. Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 156 Ill. 98, was not intended to announce a different doctrine. I. C. R. R. Co. v. Village of Lostant, 167 Ill. 91, 92. "The loss sustained in dollars and cents, and the amount of the loss must be shown, not necessarily with precision and accuracy, but approximately; and if damage is shown, but the amount is not approximately proved, there can be no more than nominal damages allowed." Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Cicero, 157 Ill. 56, citing: Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Peoria, etc., R. Co., 105 Ill. 110. "Where an improvement is made in a street which works an injury to private property, and no special tax therefor is levied on the property, then the measure |