for an injunction to restrain the mayor and aldermen of a city from unlawfully removing the plaintiff from the office of superintendent of streets, and appointing a successor; but that the remedy was at law by quo warranto or mandamus.

In Sheridan v. Colvin, 78 Ill. 237, it was held that a court of chancery had no jurisdiction to restrain by injunction a city council from passing an ordinance unlawfully abolishing the office of commissioner of police; and the court, repeating in great part the opening propositions of Kerr on Injunctions, said: "It is elementary law that the subject-matter of the jurisdiction of a 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 to property; nor do matters of a political nature come within the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery; nor has the Court of Chancery jurisdiction to interfere with the duties of any department of government, except under special circumstances, and when necessary for the protection of rights of property." 78 Ill. 247.

Upon like grounds it was adjudged in Dickey v. Reed, 78 Ill. 261, that a court of chancery had no power to restrain by injunction a board of commissioners from canvassing the results of an election; and that orders granting such an injunction, and adjudging the commissioners guilty of contempt for disregarding it, were wholly void. And in Harris v. Schryock, 82 Ill. 119, the court, in accordance with its previous decisions, held that the power to hold an election was political, and not judicial, and therefore a court of equity had no authority to restrain officers from exercising that power.

Similar decisions have been made, upon full consideration, by the Supreme Court of Alabama, overruling its own prior decisions to the contrary. Beebe v. Robinson, 52 Ala. 66; Moulton v. Reid, 54 Ala. 320.

provisions as to the "All county officers,

The statutes of Nebraska contain special removal of officers of a county or of a city. including justices of the peace, may be charged, tried, and removed from office for official misdemeanors" of certain kinds, by the board of county commissioners, upon the charge of any person. "The proceedings shall be as nearly like those in other actions as the nature of the case admits, excepting where otherwise provided in this chapter." "The complaint shall be by an accuser against the accused, and shall contain the charges with the necessary specifications under them, and be verified by the affidavit of any elector of the state that he believes the. charges to be true." No formal answer or replication is required, "but, if there be an answer and reply, the provisions of this [the?] statute relating to pleadings in actions shall apply." "The questions of fact shall be tried as in other actions, and, if the accused is

found guilty, judgment shall be entered removing the officer from his office, and declaring the latter vacant, and the clerk shall enter a copy of the judgment in the election book." Neb. Comp. St. c. 18, art. 2, § 7.

The nature of this proceeding before county commissioners has been the subject of several decisions by the Supreme Court of the state. In the earliest one the court declared: "The proceeding is quasi criminal in its nature, and the incumbent undoubtedly may be required to appear without delay, and show cause why he should not be removed. But questions of fact must be tried as in other actions, and are subject to review on error. The right to a trial upon distinct and specific charges is secured to every one thus charged with an offense for which he is liable to be removed from office." "Neither is it sufficient for the board to declare and resolve that the office is vacant. There must be a judgment of ouster against the incumbent." State v. Sheldon, 10 Neb. 452, 456, 6 N. W. 757.

The authority conferred upon county commissioners to remove county officers has since been held not to be an exercise of strictly judicial power, within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution of Nebraska which requires that "the judicial power of this state shall be vested in a Supreme Court, district courts," and other courts and magistrates therein enumerated. Const. Neb. art. 6, § 1; State v. Oleson, 15 Neb. 247, 18 N. W. 45. But it has always been considered as so far judicial in its nature that the order of the county commissioners may be reviewed on error in the district court of the county, and ultimately in the supreme court of the state. State v. Sheldon, above cited; Minkler v. State, 14 Neb. 181, 15 N. W. 330; State v. Meeker, 19 Neb. 444, 448, 27 N. W. 427. See, also, Railroad v. Washington Co., 3 Neb. 30, 41; Code Civ. Proc. Neb. §§ 580-584, 599; Crim. Code, (Ed. 1885,) § 572.

This view does not substantially differ from that taken in other states, where similar orders have been reviewed by writ of certiorari, as proceedings of an inferior tribunal or board of officers, not commissioned as judges, yet acting judicially, and not according to the course of the common law. Charles v. Mayor, etc., 27 N. J. Law, 203; People v. Fire Com'rs, 72 N. Y. 445; Donahue v. County of Will, 100 Ill. 94.

In Nebraska, as elsewhere, the validity of the removal of a public officer, and the title of the person removed, or of a new appointee, to the office, may be tried by quo warranto or mandamus. Comp. St. Neb. c. 19, §§ 13, 24; Id. c. 71; Code Civ. Proc. §§ 645, 704; Cases of Sheldon, Oleson, and Meeker, above cited; Queen v. Saddlers' Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 404; Osgood v. Nelson, L. R. 5 H. L. 636. * *

The whole object of the bill in equity filed by Parsons, the police judge of the city of Lincoln, against the mayor and councilmen of the city, upon which the Circuit Court of the United States made the order for the disregard of which they are in custody, is to prevent his re

moval from the office of police judge. No question of property is sug gested in the allegations of matters of fact in the bill, or would be involved in any decree that the court could make thereon.

The case stated in the bill is that charges in writing against Parsons for appropriating to his own use moneys of the city were filed, as required by the original ordinance, by Sheedy and Saunders (Hyatt, not otherwise named in those charges, would seem to have signed them as the additional witness required by that ordinance); that the charges were referred by the mayor to a committee of three members of the council; that upon notice to the accused, and his appearance before that committee, he objected that the committee had no authority to try the charges, and the committee so reported to the council; that thereupon Sheedy and Saunders procured the passage of the amended ordinance, giving a committee, instead of the whole council, power to try the charges, and report its finding to the council; that after the passage of this ordinance, and against his protest, the committee resumed the trial, and, in order to favor and protect his accusers, and fraudulently to obtain his removal from office, made a report to the city council, falsely stating that they reported all the evidence, and fraudulently suppressing a book which he had offered in evidence, and finding him guilty, and recommending that his office be declared. vacant, and be filled by the appointment of some other person; and that the mayor and city council set the matter down for final vote at a future day named, and threatened and declared that they would then, without hearing or reading the evidence taken before the committee, declare the office vacant, and appoint another person to fill it.

The bill prays for an injunction to restrain the mayor and councilmen of the city of Lincoln from proceeding any further with the charges against Parsons, or taking any vote on the report of the committee, or declaring the office of police judge vacant, or appointing any person to fill that office.

* * *

It has been contended by both parties, in argument, that the proceeding of the city council for the removal of Parsons upon the charges filed against him is in the nature of a criminal proceeding; and that view derives some support from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nebraska in State v. Sheldon, 10 Neb. 452, 456, 6 N. W. 757, before cited. But, if the proceeding is of a criminal nature, it is quite clear, for the reasons and upon the authorities set forth in 1. the earlier part of this opinion, that the case stated in the bill is wholly without the jurisdiction of any court of equity.

If those proceedings are not to be considered as criminal or quasi criminal, yet if, by reason of their form and object, and the acts of the Legislature and decisions of the courts of Nebraska as to the 'appellate jurisdiction exercised in such cases by the judicial power of the state, they are to be considered as proceedings in a court of the state (of which we express no decisive opinion), the restraining order of the Circuit Court was void, because in direct contravention of the

peremptory enactment of Congress that the writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a state, except when authorized by a bankrupt act. Act March 2, 1793, c. 22, § 5 (1 St. 335); Diggs v. Walcott, 4 Cranch, 179, 2 L. Ed. 587; Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612, 625, 12 L. Ed. 841; Rev. St. § 720 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 581); Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 719, 20 L. Ed. 666; Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254, 23 L. Ed. 345; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340, 24 L. Ed. 611; Sargent v. Helton, 115 U. S. 348, 6 Sup. Ct. 78, 29 L. Ed. 412.

But if those proceedings are to be considered as neither criminal nor judicial, but rather in the nature of an official inquiry by a municipal board intrusted by law with the administration and regulation of the affairs of the city, still, their only object being the removal of a public officer from his office, they are equally beyond the jurisdiction and control of a court of equity.

The reasons which preclude a court of equity from interfering with the appointment or removal of public officers of the government from which the court derives its authority apply with increased force when the court is a court of the United States, and the officers in question. are officers of a state. If a person claiming to be such an officer is, by the judgment of a court of the state, either in appellate proceedings or upon a mandamus or quo warranto, denied any right secured to him by the Constitution of the United States, he can obtain relief by a writ of error from this court.

In any aspect of the case, therefore, the Circuit Court of the United States was without jurisdiction or authority to entertain the bill in equity for an injunction. As this court has often said: "Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause; and, whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other court; but, if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void." Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 7 L. Ed. 164; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498, 511, 10 L. Ed. 264; Hickey v. Stewart, 3 How. 750, 762, 11 L. Ed. 814; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457, 467, 21 L. Ed. 897.

We do not rest our conclusion in this case, in any degree, upon the ground, suggested in argument, that the bill does not show a matter in controversy of sufficient pecuniary value to support the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, because an apparent defect of its jurisdiction in this respect, as in that of citizenship of parties, depending upon an inquiry into facts which might or might not support the jurisdiction, can be availed of only by appeal or writ of error, and does not render its judgment or decree a nullity. Prigg v. Adams, 2 Salk. 674, Carth. 274; Fisher v. Bassett, 9 Leigh (Va.) 119, 131–133, 33 Am. Dec. 227; Navigation Co. v. Homestead Co., 123 U. S. 552, 8 Sup. Ct. 217, 31 L. Ed.-202. Neither do we say that, in a case be

longing to a class or subject which is within the jurisdiction both of courts of equity and of courts of law, a mistake of a court of equity, in deciding that in the particular matter before it there could be no full, adequate, and complete remedy at law, will render its decree. absolutely void.

But the ground of our conclusion is, that whether the proceedings of the city council of Lincoln for the removal of the police judge, upon charges of misappropriating moneys belonging to the city, are to be regarded as in their nature criminal or civil, judicial or merely administrative, they relate to a subject which the Circuit Court of, the United States, sitting in equity, has no jurisdiction or power over, and can neither try and determine for itself, nor restrain by injunction. the tribunals and officers of the state and city from trying and determining. The case cannot be distinguished in principle from that of a judgment of the common bench in England in a criminal prosecution, which was coram non judice, or the case of a sentence passed by the Circuit Court of the United States upon a charge of an infamous crime, without a presentment or indictment by a grand jury. Case of the Marshalsea, 5 [10] Coke, 68, 76; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 5 Sup. Ct. 935, 29 L. Ed. 89; Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 1, 7 Sup. Ct. 781, 30 L. Ed. 849.

The Circuit Court being without jurisdiction to entertain the bill in equity for an injunction, all its proceedings in the exercise of the) jurisdiction which it assumed are null and void. The restraining order, in the nature of an injunction it had no power to make. The adjudication that the defendants were guilty of a contempt in disregarding that order is equally void, their detention by the marshal under that adjudication is without authority of law, and they are entitled to be discharged. Ex parte Rowland, 104 U. S. 604, 26 L. Ed. 861; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 5 Sup. Ct. 724, 28 L. Ed. 1117; In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 507, 8 Sup. Ct. 164, 31 L. Ed. 216.

Writ of habeas corpus to issue.

WAITE, C. J. (dissenting). I am not prepared to decide that an officer of a municipal government cannot, under any circumstances, apply to a court of chancery to restrain the municipal authorities from proceeding to remove him from his office without the authority of law. There may be cases, in my opinion, when the tardy remedies of quo warranto, certiorari, and other like writs will be entirely inadequate. I can easily conceive of circumstances under which a removal, even for a short period, would be productive of irremediable mischief. Such cases may rarely occur, and the propriety of such an application may not often be seen; but if one can arise, and if the exercise of the jurisdiction can ever be proper, the proceedings of the court in due course upon a bill filed for such relief will not be void, even though the grounds on which it is asked may be insufficient. If the court can take jurisdiction of such a case under any