What is the test for establishing the jurisdiction of a superior court?

'(U)ntil the court determines that it has jurisdiction and does some act in consequence, there can be no injury to the party who denies its jurisdiction. (Citation.) It means only that the trial court or lower tribunal or body to which the question is submitted has such jurisdiction to make the first preliminary determination--not a final one; and no interference is permitted until it does decide the matter one way or the other. Until it acts to assume or refuse jurisdiction over the the merits no one is entitled to complain.' (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280, 303, 109 P.2d 942, 955, 132 A.L.R. 715.)

We therefore perceive that respondent could not properly allege facts sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the superior court. Respondent asserts however, in support of his position that this requirement is based upon mere courtesy between courts, to aid in minimizing unnecessary litigation, and is not a jurisdictional matter. (Monterey Club v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.App.2d 131, 119 P.2d 349.) We do not agree. Although the undisputed basis for the rule encompasses respect for and consideration of the lower court in the interests of minimizing litigation, this does not render it any the less a jurisdictional rule, the effect of which is not obviated by [260 Cal.App.2d 824] the People's failure to bring it to the superior court's attention.

Moreover, in the case relied upon by respondent the court noted that the rule was liberally interpreted because the petitioner entitled to relief '* * * was not a party to the proceedings in respondent court and therefore had no opportunity to there object on jurisdictional grounds * * *.' (Monterey Club v. Superior Court, supra, 48 Cal.App.2d 131, 143, 119 P.2d 349, 355.)