of the complaint to be true, he had an interest of $1,500 in the litigation, —that is, he was to receive that upon a favorable termination of it, and he could terminate it favorably because he was judge in the case of both the law and the fact, and had agreed to decide the case in defendant’s favor. Thus, the plaintiff’s rights were wholly ignored, disregarded, and given no consideration.
It is our contention, assuming or regarding the allegations of the complaint as true, that the very moment the court agreed to receive the $1,500 for deciding the case in favor of the defendant, its power absolutely ceased. Its jurisdiction was at an end.
We will assume a case where the court has jurisdiction of the subject- matter and of the person, and the issues are joined. It will be conceded, in such circumstances, that the court has jurisdiction, but, if one of the parties ‘makes and files an affidavit of bias or prejudice against the judge, his jurisdiction immediately ceases. He cannot take another step in the proceeding which will affect the rights of the parties. It will thus be seen that the jurisdiction may be acquired, and in certain circumstances may again depart, without the trial court having any authority or power to retain it.
In this jurisdiction, where such an affidavit is filed, it is not necessary to give any reasons, or produce any evidence of the bias or prejudice of the judge. A simple affidavit of bias or prejudice terminates the power of the judge. Of course, the charge here involved is not bias or prejudice, but corruption of the trial court by bribery; and where that is shown to exist, it just as effectively terminates the power of the court to proceed in the matter before him, as in the case of the filing of an affidavit of prejudice, and this, by reason of § 22 of our Constitution, which, so far as material here, is as follows:
“All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation shall have remedy by due process of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial, or delay.” This provision of our Constitution is self-executing. Similar constitutional provisions in other state Constitutions have been so held. Rea v. State 3 Okla. Crim. Rep. 276, 139 Am. St. Rep. 954, 105 Pac. 385.
In that case the question was an affidavit of prejudice against the judge, or a motion for a change of judge, which was overruled, on the theory that the same was filed after the witnesses in the case had been summoned. The court there said: “This requires a consideration of § 15 of Bunn’s Constitution of Oklahoma, which is as follows: “The courts of
