that purpose and a writ of prohibition was granted to prohibit further proceedings in the matter, it was said by the court that the power of the board to act in the premises was limited to the mode prescribed in the statute, and the board was necessarily without jurisdiction to act on a petition containing an insufficient number of signers. Fox v. Board of Supervisors, 49 Cal. 564.

A writ of prohibition was sought in behalf of the Spring Valley Water Works, to restrain the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, from passing an ordinance affecting the rights of the city to water and the duty of the company to supply the city with water for certain purposes. Justice McKinstry, delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court said:

* *

"In my opinion the writ ought not to issue to arrest any legislation pending before a body authorized by the constitution and laws to legislate with reference to matters of public interest. * I know of no way in which it can be shown that the members of the board of supervisors threaten (in their official capacity) to pass an ordinance, and it must be presumed that the members of that legislative assembly will fully consider the question of the power to pass the order, as well as the merits of the order itself. It would not be the exercise of the sound discretion of the court to prohibit any consideration of a measure which, after discussion, might by amendment be deprived of its objectionable features,

merely because if passed finally as 'passed to print,' it would be in excess of the power conferred on the board by the city charter." Spring Valley Water Co. v. S. F., 52 Cal. 111.

An action will lie to prohibit the supervisors, cuditor and treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco from incurring an indebtedness in excess of the revenue provided for the fiscal year, and to enjoin the supervisors from levying a tax or making any provision for paying a deficiency out of the public funds provided for the ensuing year. Bradford v. City and County of S. E., 112 Cal. 540. See also Ex parte, Haskell, 112 Cal. 415.

The legislature cannot enlarge or extend the office of the writ of prohibition so as to include ministerial functions; a tax collector is a ministerial officer and cannot be restrained by prohibition from performing the duties of his office. Hobart v. Tillson, 66 Cal. 210; Farmers Co-operative Union v. Thresher, 62 Cal. 407; Le Conte v. Trustees, 57 Cal. 269.

A writ of prohibition will not issue to arrest the proceedings of a board of supervisors, unless the proceedings themselves are absolutely without or in excess of the jurisdiction of the board. People v. Board of Supervisors, 47 Cal. 81.

The matter of fixing water rates is not judicial, and a writ of prohibition will not be awarded to restrain a board of supervisors from performing that duty. Spring Valley W. W. v. Bartlett, 63 Cal. 245.

Prohibition will not lie to restrain the call

ing of a special election by election commissioners. Taylor v. Board of Election Com. 54 Cal. 404.

Nor to restrain controller from drawing illegal warrants. Camron v. Kenfield, 57 Cal.

553.

CERTIORARI.

SEC. 1057. The writ of certiorari may be denominated the writ of review.

SEC. 1058. A writ of review may be granted by any court, except a police or justice's court, when an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board or officer, and there is no appeal, nor in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

The only cases in which a writ of certiorari will lie are those in which an inferior tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board, or officer, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy.

Erroneous views entertained, or incorrect reasons assigned, or evidence erroneously admitted in deciding the controversy, do not make a case of want of jurisdiction, and are not to be considered upon certiorari

The general definition of jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine, and, as applied to a particular claim or controversy, is the power to hear and determine that controversy. Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 43 Cal. 365; Whitney v. Board of D. of S. F. F. D., 14 Cal. 479; Henshaw v. Board of Supervisors, 19 Cal. 150; Cole v. Superior

Court, 63 Cal. 86; Hume v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. 239; Levy v. Superior Court, 66 Cal. 292; Wulzen v. Board of Supervisors, 101 Cal. 15; Noble v. Superior Court, 109 Cal. 523; Holbrook M. & S. v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 589; Johnston v. Board of Supervisors, 104 Cal. 390; White v. Superior Court, 110 Cal. 60.

A board of supervisors is a body with limited jurisdiction, and its jurisdiction must appear in the record of its proceedings. Finch v. Board of Supervisors, 29 Cal. 454.

The action of a board of supervisors in rejecting a bid for county printing is not judicial in its nature and therefore cannot be reviewed by certiorari Townsend v. Copeland, 56 Cal. 612.

A petition by a private citizen for writ to review the action of a board of supervisors in illegally allowing a claim against the county will not be granted where the money has already been paid on the order, at least until the matter has been laid before the district attorney. Section 8 of the county government act makes it the duty of that officer to act in such cases and affords an adequate remedy. Burr v. Board of Supervisors, 96 Cal. 212.

The power to require a renewal of official bonds when necessary, does not leave the matter to the arbitrary discretion of the board. Even where the statute formerly read "whenever they deem the same necessary," it was held that such power could be properly exercised after an examination of the case, and there was in fact necessity for further

security. An order to renew an official bond should specify the ground upon which the order is made. The action of the board is judicial in its nature and may be reviewed on certiorari. People v. Supervisors of Marin Co., 10 Cal. 345.

Wherever the determination of a 'act by a board of supervisors is not made conclusive, their actions in the premises may be reviewed on certiorari. The action of the board in determining whether the public convenience requires a bridge or ferry within one mile of any other regularly licensed bridge or ferry cannot be attacked collaterally. Fall v. Paine, 23 Cal. 303. But such action may be reviewed on certiorari. Murray v. Supervisors, Cal. 495; and see Miller v. Sacramento Co., 25 Cal. 97; People v. Evans, 29 Cal. 435.

As to all facts tending to show whether the power of the board ought or ought not to be exercised, either by granting or denying the petition in whole or in part, the board exercises judicial functions, and its judgments are final and cannot be attacked collaterally, but may be reviewed upon certiorari, where the jurisdiction of the board has been exceeded. Levee District No. 9 v. Farmen, 101 Cal. 178.

When a public board or officer exceeds the limited power conferred by law, and such excessive use of authority add to the burden of local taxation, any taxpayer is entitled to a writ of certiorari to review the action of such board or officer. Maxwell v. Board of Supervisors, 53 Cal. 389.