the purpose of supervising the inferior courts of the United States. At the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, the writ of mandamus was one of the principle methods used by the court of king's bench for the purpose of exercising its supervisory power over the inferior courts, and was adopted by the original judiciary act as one of the modes for the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court, the thirteenth section of the act expressly empowering that court to issue "writs of mandamus, in cases, warranted by the usages and principles of law, to any courts appointed under the authority of the United States," and it appears by a long and unbroken line of decisions that the only practical use of the writ of mandamus by the United States supreme court is in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and supervisory power over the inferior courts of the United States.14

$498. When the writ of mandamus will issue to inferior courts of the United States.-The only office of the writ of mandamus, when issued from a superior to an inferior court, is to direct the performance of a ministerial act, or to command the court to act in a case or matter where it has jurisdiction and refuses to act. The supreme court has the power to issue the writ to inferior courts of the United States only "in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law," 15 and the rule is that those principles and usages warrant the issue of the writ when the inferior court, having jurisdiction of a case, refuses to hear and decide the controversy, or, having heard the case, refuses to render or enter a judgment or decree

14 Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313-338 (205:667); Re Green, 141 U. S. 325 (35:765); Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 200 (8:96); Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 165 (200:879); Hudson v. Parker, 156 U. S. 277 (39:424); Ex parte Connaway, 178 U. S. 421 (44:1134); Re Grossmayer, 177 U. S. 48 (44:665); Re Potts, 166 U. S. 263 (41:994); Re Parker, 131 U. S. 221 (33:123); Re Parker, 120 U. S. 737 (30:818); Re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653 (37: 1211); Re Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co.'s Petition, 128 U. S. 544 (32: 508); Gaines v. Caldwell, 148 U. S.

228 (37:432); Re City Nat. Bank, 153 U. S. 246 (38:705); Ex parte Schallenberger, 96 U. S. 369 (24: 853); Ex parte Sawyer, 21 Wall. 235 (22:617); Ex parte Burtis, 103 U. S. 238 (26:392); United States v. Lawrence, 3 Dall. 42 (1:502); United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115 (3:53); Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 524 (9:1181); Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497 (10: 559); United States v. Addison, 22 How. 174 (16:304).

15 U. S. Rev. Stat. sec. 688, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 565, 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. 439.

therein, or refuses to act on some matter connected with the case where such action is necessary to give effect to its judgment or is necessary for the submission of the case to the appellate court for review, or refuses to execute the mandate of the appellate court; but the principles and usages of law do not warrant the use of the writ of mandamus to review, revise or re-examine the judgment or decree of the inferior court, nor to prescribe what its decision shall be or direct what judgment or decree it shall enter in any pending case, nor to control the judgment or discretion of the court in disposing of the case, nor will the writ be issued in any case if the party aggrieved has a remedy by writ of error or appeal. The writ operates in aid of the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court, by directing the inferior court to proceed, according to its own judgment, to a final determination, so that its judgment may be reviewed on writ of error or appeal.16

§ 499. Writ cannot issue in cases where the supreme court has neither original nor appellate jurisdiction.-The supreme court has no power to award a writ of mandamus in cases over which it possseses neither original nor appellate jurisdiction.17

§ 500. Writ cannot be used as a writ of error or appeal.—A writ of mandamus cannot be issued by the supreme court to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error, to review the judicial action of an inferior court of the United States; and, therefore, does not lie to review a final judgment or decree of the circuit court, sustaining a plea to the jurisdiction, even if no appeal or writ of error is given by law.18

§ 501. The writ cannot be issued to state courts.-The special authority given by the federal statute to the supreme court of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to the inferior federal courts has always been held to exclude the authority

16 Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 152 (20:877); Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 8' Pet. 291 (8:949); United States v. Russell, 13 Wall. 623 (20:474); United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 135 (3:58); Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 648 (8: 815): Ex parte Many, 14 How. 24 (14:311); United States V. Lawrence, 3 Dall. 42 (1:502); Commissioners of Patents V.

Whiteley, 4 Wall. 522 (18:335);
Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Adams, 9
Pet. 602 (9:244).

17 Ex parte Gertrude Glaser, 198 U. S. 171-173 (49:1000); Re Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 482 (49:845). 18 American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Ry. Co., 148 U. S. 372-378 (37: 486).

to issue those writs to state courts and state officers, except where they are issued as process in the execution of judgments; and writ of error, and not mandamus, is the proper remedy to correct the action of the supreme court of a state in failing to give full effect to a mandate from the supreme court of the United States by mistaking or misconstruing its judgment.10.

(c) THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

§ 502. Jurisdiction to issue the writ under the original judíciary act.-Under the fourteenth section of the original judiciary act, preserved as section seven hundred and sixteen of the revised statutes, which gave to all the courts of the United States power to issue all "writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law," the supreme court has power to issue the writ of certiorari either (1) as an auxiliary process only, to supply imperfections in the record of a case already before it, and not as a writ of error to review the judgment of an inferior court, 20 or (2) as an original and independent writ, whenever the circumstances imperatively demand it, as at common law, to correct excesses of jurisdiction, and in furtherance of justice, as in the case of judgments in contempt proceedings in excess of the jurisdiction of the lower court, and which are not reviewable on appeal or writ of error, but may be reached by certiorari in the absence of any other adequate remedy.21

§ 503. Same-Court cannot issue the writ when it has no jurisdiction over the case.-In cases over which the supreme court possesses neither original nor appellate jurisdiction, it cannot issue the writ of certiorari, either as an ancillary or original process.22

$504. Same-Writ cannot issue to review proceedings of military tribunal.-The supreme court has no power under the above mentioned legislation to review, by writ of certiorari,

19 Re Blake, 175 U. S. 114-120 (44:94).

20 American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co., 148 U. S. 372-378 (37:486), and authorities cited.

21 Ex parte Chetwood, 165 U. S. 443-462 (41:782); Whitney V. Dick, 202 U. S. 132-141 (50:963). 22 Ex parte Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 482-488 (49:845).

the proceedings of military tribunals. Such tribunals possessing no jurisdiction of cases in law and equity within the meaning of the third article of the federal constitution, and the question of the issue of the writ of certiorari by the supreme court in the exercise of any inherent general power cannot arise in respect of them.23

§ 505. Jurisdiction to issue the writ under the judiciary act of March 3, 1891.-By the sixth section of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, the supreme court is given jurisdiction to issue the writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals, to remove a large class of cases for review and determination with the same power and authority in the case as if it had been carried to the supreme court by appeal or writ of error.24

23 Re Vidal, 179 U. S. 126-127 (45:118).

24 26 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 517, sec.

6, p. 826; Kingman & Co. v. Western Manufacturing Co., 170 U. S. 675-681 (42:1192).

CHAPTER XIII.

THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.