We are in agreement with the following portions of the opinion heretofore prepared in this proceeding by Mr. Presiding Justice Stephens when the same was pending before the District'Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, and we adopt the same, with some additional comment, as and for the decision of this court:

The foregoing is determinative of the present proceeding. If, as we have seen, the court below was within its jurisdiction in staying further proceedings pending arbitration, to which the plaintiffs acceded, and if, as stated above, it was within its jurisdiction in denying the motion made under section 473, supra, for relief from such order, this is not a proper case for the issuance of a writ of certiorari. The authorities are legion to the effect that where a court has "jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter of the action, such jurisdiction carries with it the authority to decide the questions submitted to it, incorrectly as well as correctly. Accordingly, error in the exercise of its jurisdiction, however gross, cannot be annulled on certiorari. (Culver v. Superior Court, 185 Cal. 144 [ 195 Pac. 1055 ]; American Law Book Co. v. Superior Court, 164 Cal. 327 [ 128 Pac. 921 ]; Matter of Hughes, 159 Cal. 360 [ 113 Pac. 684 ]; Erickson v. Municipal Court, 219 Cal. 737, 739 [ 29 Pac. (2d) 192 ].) In the last-cited case the following appears:

In other words, the writ of certiorari cannot be used as a writ of error, or as a substitute for the remedy of appeal, to correct the errors, either of law or fact, committed by an inferior tribunal within the limits of its jurisdiction. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Eshleman, 166 Cal. 640 [ 137 Pac. 1119 , Ann Cas. 1915C, 822, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 652]; Valentine v. Police Court, 141 Cal. 615 [ 75 Pac. 336 ].)

The writ is denied.

Shenk, J., Thompson, J.,. Langdon, J., Curtis, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.