It is true that " `[w] henever the absence of jurisdiction is brought to the notice of the court or tribunal, cognizance of it must be taken and the matter passed upon before it "can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction."

BEACH, J. Our probate courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and therefore their decrees are not conclusive as to the fact of jurisdiction, but may be collaterally attacked for want of jurisdiction.

Counsel refer to the rule prevailing in Connecticut that the decision of a commission or an administrative official will be reviewed upon a claim that "it works material damage to individual or corporate rights, or invades or threatens such rights, or is so unreasonable as to justify judicial intervention, or is not consonant with justice, or that a legal duty has not been …

"The objection of want of jurisdiction may be made at any time...[a] nd the court or tribunal may act on its own motion, and should do so when the lack of jurisdiction is called to its attention."

It necessarily follows that the order for alimony and support pendente lite was coram non judice and void.

The sanction for that course lies in the fact that, if the question whether there is a lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action comes to the attention of the court, it can proceed no further until the matter is determined; it is of no consequence how it is suggested; and the court may even act suo motu.

If the state's motion had been granted, as we are persuaded it should have been, the trial court would have been without jurisdiction to allow Peabody to amend its pleadings.

As the appeal was taken to the wrong court, the Superior Court was without jurisdiction and was powerless to make any transfer.

The language of General Statutes § 4-189 that "[a] ny provisions... which are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter [§§ 4-166—4-189] are repealed" gives no more force than the doctrine of repeal by implication.

As the question was of the jurisdiction of the court over the res, the respondents might have raised the issue again upon the facts proven at the hearing upon the merits.