Appeal from Judgment—Lapse of Sixty Days—Sufficiency of Evidence not Reviewable.—Upon appeal from the judgment taken more than sixty days after the rendition of the judgment, the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision is not reviewable, such review being expressly forbidden by section 939 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Id.—Appeal from Order Denying New Trial—Bill of Exceptions— Absence of Specifications of Insufficiency—Evidence not Reviewable.—Upon appeal from an order denying a new trial, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding cannot be reviewed, where there is nothing in the bill of exceptions specifying the particulars in which the evidence is insufficient, as required by section 648 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Id.—Action by Administrator and Heirs to Quiet Title — Former Judgment in Favor of Cross-complainant’s Grantor—Evidence —Order of Appointment.—In an action by an administrator and heirs of a decedent to quiet title to land, where the defendant, cross-complainant, pleaded a former judgment of the same superior court quieting his title by publication against Bartels and the other defendants upon constructive service ordered by the court, it is held that the court properly excluded evidence of the appointment of the administrator, in order collaterally to assail the former judgment by showing that deceased was dead when the former suit was commenced. It is held that the exact date of Ms death was not essential to the order of appointment and was not concluded thereby.

Id.—Gross-complainant not Bound by Probate Proceeding—Effect of Appointment.-—-The cross-complainant, not being a party to the probate proceeding, could not be bound thereby. Giving to the order of appointment the broadest scope possible under the law, it could only be conclusive between parties and their privies in respect of the matters directly adjudged; and those matters could only be those things necessary and essential in conferring jurisdiction and establishing the authority of the court to make the order.

Id.—-Want of Jurisdiction not Appearing upon Judgment-roll—Collateral Attack not Allowed—Bights of Parties.—Where no want of jurisdiction appears upon the face of the judgment-roll offered in evidence, it cannot be collaterally assailed. A domestic judgment must be void upon its face to be the subject of collateral attack. Whatever may be the rights of the parties, in an action in equity to set aside the judgment, it is clear that a domestic judgment regular upon its face is not the subject of collateral attack.