[1] Taxation — Invalid Sale to State — Continuance op Lien — Judgment.—In an action by the state controller to ) recover the possession of real property which had been conveyed to the state for delinquent taxes, a judgment decreeing that the state had no interest in or lien upon the property because of the invalidity of the original tax sale to the state is erroneous, since the lien of the state remains as a burden on the property until discharge by payment or by a valid sale to the state.

[2] Id.—Action by State—Possession op Property—Appirmative Belief—Bight op Dependant.—In an action by the' state controller acting under the provisions of section 3773 of the Political Code to recover the possession and the rents and profits of real property which had been deeded to the state for delinquent taxes, the defendant cannot, in the absence of statutory authority, convert the action into one to quiet title and obtain affirmative relief therein against the state.

[3] Id.—Consent op State — Provisions Authorizing Cross-complaints Insufficient.—The provisions of the law authorizing cross-complaints do not give the consent of the state to a cross-complaint to quiet title in an action brought by the state controller, representing the state, for the possession and for an accounting of the rents and profits of real property deeded to the state for delinquent taxes.

[4] Courts—Actions Concerning Possession op Beal Estate— Jurisdiction—Constitutional Law.—Where the constitution itself has expressly defined and fixed the exclusive jurisdiction of its courts with reference to actions concerning the possession of real estate, the legislature cannot, under the general power to legislate, infringe upon the jurisdictional limits established by the constitution itself, by giving jurisdiction to superior courts of counties other than those in which the property is located.

[5] Taxation—Becovery op Possession op Beal Property—Jurisdiction—Section 3773, Political Code, TTnconstitutional.—Section 3773 of the Political Code, in so far as it attempts to give jurisdiction to the superior court of Sacramento County of actions by the state controller for the possession of real property located in other counties which has been conveyed to the state for delinquent taxes, is void, in view of section 5 of article VI of the constitution, which gives exclusive jurisdiction of actions to quiet title or for the possession of real property to the superior court of the county in which the property is situated.

[6] Id.—Recovery of Rents—Local Character of Action not Destroyed.—The local character of an action on behalf of the state to recover the possession of real property which has been conveyed to it for delinquent taxes, is not affected by the fact that the action is also one for the rents, issues, and profits of the property, since the action in so far as it relates to the rents is essentially one to quiet title within the meaning of the constitution.

[7] Pleading—Action for Rents—Issue of Title—Character of Action.—An action for rents and profits of real property where the right to the title is involved is not a transitory action.