These are purported appeals from orders granting (1) the motion of respondents Sansum Clinic, W. D. Sansum, R. A. Hare, D. IT. McNamara, H. I. Burtness, Alfred E. Koehler, B. S. Wyckoif, and Ruth Bowden, to strike out a cross-complaint filed in the above-entitled action; and (2) the motion of respondent Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital to strike from the cross-complaint references to its corespondents.

The essential facts are:

There was also filed with the purported cross-complaint a document reading as follows:

March 16, 1937, Justice of the Peace Wagner made an order transferring the action to the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County and on April 30, 1937, all pleadings in the action were transferred to the clerk of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. June 21, 1937, the orders granting the motions to strike, from which these purported appeals are taken, were made by the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County.

These are the questions presented for determination:

The first question must be answered in the negative. The law is established in California that new or additional parties to an action may be included in a cross-complaint as defendants thereto only after a valid order of the court permitting the inclusion of said new or additional parties as defendants to the cross-complaint. (Alpers v. Bliss, 145 Cal. 565, 570 [ 79 Pac. 171 ] ; Overell v. Overell, 18 Cal. App. (2d) 499, 502 [ 64 Pac. (2d) 483 ].)

In Alpers v. Bliss, supra, our Supreme Court thus states the rule at page 570:

The second question must likewise be answered in the negative. Section 396 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads in part as follows:

The requirements of this section are mandatory and orders of a justice's court not in conformity therewith are without jurisdiction and void. (Stratton v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. (2d) 693, 698 [ 43 Pac. (2d) 539 ].)

Applying the foregoing rules to the instant case, it appears that respondents were not parties to the original action, and when the defendant Kobey filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff asking for the sum of $20,000 the justice of the peace lost jurisdiction to do or make any orders other than to transfer the action to the superior court and to certify the pleadings before him to the clerk of the superior court.

It is thus evident that the purported order of the justice of the peace of November 6, 1936, permitting the filing of the cross-complaint was void and, as the cross-complaint brought in new and additional parties to the action without a valid court order permitting the filing of the same, the trial court’s rulings were correct.

For the foregoing reasons the orders appealed from, are and each is, affirmed.

Grail, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.