judge. No question of property is suggested 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 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 a state, except when authorized by a bankrupt act.

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; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498, 511.

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. Prig 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 belonging 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.

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.

Mandamus to Compel Restoration to Head of Civil Service List. BROWN v. RUSSELL.

166 Mass. 14. 1896.

One who as a result of a civil service examination is placed at the head of the list of eligibles for appointment is entitled to a writ of mandamus for the purpose of compelling the commissioners to restore his name to the head of the list though they have placed that of a veteran at the head in conformity to a statute. Such a statute held unconstitutional.

FIELD, C. J. In determining the principal questions in this case, it is necessary to consider the statutes relating to the civil service, and particularly St. 1895, c. 501. It is obvious

that the civil service statutes and rules relate only to certain subordinate offices and employments which have been created by the legislature. None of them is an office or employment of which the duties, tenure, or qualifications are prescribed by the Constitution.

In the present case the petitioner is not a veteran, and, after examination, was placed at the head of the list of candidates. eligible for certification and appointment to a position on the detective force of the district police of the Commonwealth, and he remained at the head of the list until July, 1895, when the commissioners placed one Edward D. Bean at the head of the list, and reduced the petitioner to the second place. Bean had made application as a veteran, under St. 1895, c. 501, § 2, and, having been found to be a veteran, was without examination. placed first upon the list; and so far as appears, he is the only veteran on the list. The district police are appointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth, and are subject to removal by the Governor. Pub. Sts. c. 103, § 1. If the Governor makes requisition upon the commissioners for a candidate for appointment to the office of a detective upon this police force, it is made the duty of the commissioners, by the St. of 1895, to certify the name of Edward D. Bean for appointment, and of the

Governor to appoint him, if he appoints anybody. The Governor, perhaps, may refuse to appoint anybody, if he is of opinion that Bean is not qualified to perform the duties of a detective on this force; or he may wait until more veterans than one are on the list of persons eligible to such an appointment, and make his selection from them; or he may appoint Bean, and remove him if he finds him incompetent. But then, if Bean is continued on the list, and is the only veteran on it, or if his application is considered as exhausted by one certification and he makes a new application, the statutes, liberally construed, make it the duty of the commissioners to put his name again at the head of the list for appointment, and on requisition by the Governor again to certify him for appointment, and so on, toties quoties, so long as he remains on the list.

It is to be noticed that the class of veterans, as defined by the statutes, is not a class which anybody can become qualified to enter by any services which he may perform, or by any attainments which he may acquire, but it is a class fixed and determined by services which were rendered a long time before any of the statutes were passed. It is also to be noticed that the

fact of having been a veteran within the meaning of the statute in and of itself has little tendency to show that the applicant is specially qualified to perform the duties of many of the offices to which the civil service statutes and rules relate. The principal purpose of exempting veterans from submitting to an examination must be that veterans sometimes may be appointed to an office or employment who would be found on examination not qualified to perform the duties of the office or employment which they seek. One, and perhaps the chief, purpose of the exemption must be to reward veterans for their services in the war of the rebellion. The reward is not in the nature of a pension or payment of money, but of an office or employment, the salary or pay of which the veteran is to receive. The provisions of the statutes exempting veterans are general in their nature, and relate to all the offices or employments that have been or may be included within the civil service rules. From the earliest times most nations have conferred honors and offices upon those who have rendered distinguished service to the state, particularly in war. These honors and offices have been conferred upon persons voluntarily selected,