obligee has obtained judgment in the circuit court. (Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402.) When a State is de1endant, summons served on the governor and 1 ttorneygeneral is sufficient (Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419; Grayson v. State, 3 Dall. 320); and it is entitled to a longer time to answer than an individual. (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 13 Peters, 23.) If it fails to appear on the return day, the adverse party may proceed (Ex parte Huger v. South Carolina, 3 Dall. 339; New Jersey v. New York, 5 Peters, 284); and so if it withdraws its appearance. (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 15 Peters, 233; S. C., 12 Peters, 657.)

§ 203. Writs of prohibition and mandamus.-The Supreme Court shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed under the authority of the United States, or to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, where a State or an embassador, or other public minister, or a consul or vice-consul, is a party. (Rev. Stats. sec. 688.)

Prohibition.-When a writ of prohibition is applied for, the question presented is not whether libelant can recover on the suit he has begun, but whether he can go into a court of admiralty to have his rights determined. (Ex parte Gordon, 3 Morr. Trans. 433.) Where the question of jurisdiction was one proper to be decided by the admiralty court subject to the remedy by appeal, the writ will be denied (Ex parte Gordon, 3 Morr. Trans. 433); as in the case of a suit for pilotage claimed to be due under a statutory regulation (Ex parte Hager, 3 Morr. Trans. 438); or a suit for damages for death in a collision. (Ex parte Gordon, 3 Morr. Trans. 433. See ex parte Gordon, 1 Black, 503.) A writ of prohibition will not be issued after the libel has been dis

missed. (U. S. v. Hoffman, 4 Wall, 158.) If the district court entertains a libel in personam to recover damages for a seizure as prize when the prize has been taken into a foreign port, the writ will issue. (U. S. v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121.) Whether the district court has transcended its jurisdiction depends on the facts stated in the record. (Ex parte Easton, 85 U. S. 68.) It cannot be issued to regulate proceedings of the district court as a court of bankruptcy. (In re Christy, 3 How. 292.) It can issue the writ only under especial authority of law. (Ex parte Gordon, 1 Black, 503; In re Christy, 3 How. 292.) It cannot be issued to restrain a proceeding on bill of review, as on condemnation of land under confiscation laws (Ex parte Graham, 10 Wall. 541); nor can it issue the writ to restrain the execution of a sentence for crime of one convicted in the circuit court (Ex parte Gordon, 1 Black, 292); nor restrain a proceeding by bill in equity to determine the right to an elective office. (Ex parte Warmouth, 17 Wall. 64.) This court may proceed by way of prohibition in respect to the district court for the district of Alaska. (Re Cooper, 138 U. S. 404. See Farnsworth v. Montana, 129 U. S. 104.) The writ may be issued to the district court in a case in admiralty and maritime_cognizance, in which it has no jurisdiction. (Ex parte Easton, 25 U. S. 88; United States v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121.)

Mandamus, office of writ.-The office of a writ of mandamus is to compel the performance of a plain and positive duty (Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14), and is the only adequate mode_of_relief where an inferior court refuses to act (Life & F. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 8 Peters, 291), or where the exercise of the discretion of the court is ir regular, against law, of flagrant injustice, or without jurisdiction. (Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall. 364.) The writ may be issued to supervise proceeding in inferior tribunals where there is a legal right without an existing remedy (Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall. 376); but it is never granted in anticipation of an omission of duty, but only after actual default. (Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14.) It may issue to compel a court to proceed with the case (Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258; Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507); or to remand a case (Ex parte Virginia, 100.

U. S. 339); or to reinstate a case (Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Peters, 634); or to entertain a motion in a case (Ex parte Russell, 13 Wall. 664); or to proceed to judgment; but a plain case must be made out. (Life & F. Ins. Co. v. Adams, 9 Peters, 571.) If the circuit court possess an order staying a suit, mandamus is the remedy. (Livingston v. Dorgenois, 7 Cranch, 577.) A writ of mandamus may be issued to compel an inferior tribunal to decide a case, but it cannot direct the manner in which to decide or indicate the character of the judgment. (Life & F. Ins. Co. v. Adams, 9 Peters, 571; Crawford v. Addison, 22 How. 174; see Ex parte Burtis, 103 U. S. 238.) The court will not, by mandamus, compel an inferior court to reverse a decision. (Ex parte Perry, 102 U. S. 183.) If a court renders a judgment of dismissal for want of jurisdiction, but refuses to enter it, mandamus lies to compel the entry (Ex parte Bradstreet, 6 Peters, 774); and if the judge dies before signing the judgment, his successor may be compelled by mandamus to do so. (Life & F. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 8 Peters, 291; Life & F. Ins. Co. v. Adams, 9 Peters, 571.) It may be issued to compel a judge to sign a bill of exceptions (Ex parte Crane, 5 Peters, 190), but not if he says it is incorrect (Bradstreet v. Thomas, 4 Peters, 102); nor if it has not been properly prepared. It may be issued to compel a judge to carry the judgment into effect. (Stafford v. Union Bank, 16 How. 135; Stafford v. New Orleans C. & B. Co., 17 How. 283.) If an inferior court disobeys or mistakes the mandate of the Supreme Court, the errors or omissions may be brought up by motion for a mandamus. (U. S. v. Fossatt, 21 How. 445; White v. U. S., 1 Black, 501; Ex parte Dubuque & Pac. R. R. Co., 1 Wall. 69.) The judgment in a mandamus proceeding is subject to review. (Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S. 672.) The Supreme Court may issue a mandamus to the court of claims. (Ex parte Roberts, 15 Wall. 384; Ex parte United States, 16 Wall. 699). A writ of mandamus may properly be issued by the Supreme Court of the United States to compel the judge of an inferior court to settle and sign a bill of exceptions. (Re Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co.'s Petition, 128 U. S. 544.) The Supreme Court of the United States will not interfere by mandamus with the executive officers of the government in the exercise of their ordinary

official duties, even where those duties require an interpretation of the law. (United States v. Black, 128 U. S., 40. See Ex parte Penn. Co., 137 U. S. 451.)

Mandamus, when will not issue. The writ of mandamus will not issue when there is any other appropriate remedy (Crawford v. Addison, 22 How. 174; Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 152); so it will not issue to revise a decree or judgment, the remedy being by error or appeal (Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 152; Ex parte Flippen, 94 U. S. 348; Ex parte Loring, 94 U. S. 418; Ex parte Schwab, 98 U. S. 240); so it cannot be issued to reverse a judgment and direct the court to issue a mandamus on its part (Ex parte De Groot, 7 Wall. 497); but if the circuit court refuses to allow an appeal, mandamus lies to compel it to do so (Ex parte Jordan, 94 U. S. 248; Ex parte Railroad Co., 95 U. S. 221); but petitioner must show a clear right to the appeal (Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14); and if the judge is ready to allow the appeal, but the application therefor was irregular, mandamus will not be awarded. (Mussina v. Cavazos, 20 How. 280). A mandamus will not be issued to compel the court to withdraw a plea and direct a different issue, for error in the proceedings can only be corrected by writ of error (Bank v. Sweeney, 1 Peters, 567); nor to compel a judge to vacate an order, for it is not the proper process to correct an erroneous judgment. (Ex parte Hoyt, 13 Peters, 279. See Re Burdett, 127 U. S. 771.) This court cannot, by mandamus, correct the judicial errors committed by an inferior court in the progress of a cause; that is the office of a writ of error or an appeal. (Ex parte Perry, 102 U. S. 183; Ex parte Whitney, 13 Peters, 404; Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 152; Ex parte Loring, 94 U. S. 418; Ex parte Schwab, 98 U. S. 240; Ex parte Burtis, 103 U. S. 238; Ex parte Des Moines, etc. R. Co., 103 U. S. 794; Ex parte Connecticut Mut. Ins. Co.; Ex parte Hoard, 105 U. S. 578; Ex parte Baltimore & O. R, Co.. 108 U. S. 566; Ex parte Des Moines & Minneapolis R. Co., 103 U. S. 794; Ex parte Baltimore & O. R. Co., 108 U. S. 566; Ex parte De Groot, 6 Wall. 497.

Political department.-While the political department of the government has not parted with its power

over a matter, the intervention of the judicial department cannot be invoked to compel action. (United States, Boynton, v. Blaine, 139 U. S. 306.) Mandamus will not issue to compel the secretary of state to pay money in his hands to one party which is claimed by another party, and the right to which is in litigation between them. (Bayard v. United States, White, 127 U. S. 246.) The courts will not interfere with the executive officers of the government in the exercise of their ordinary official duties. (United States, Miller, v. Raum, 135 U. S. 200.) Mandamus cannot issue in a case where its effect is to direct or control the head of an executive department in the dis charge of an executive duty involving the exercise of judgment or discretion. (United States, Boynton, v. Blaine, 139 U. S. 306.) When executive officers refuse to act at all, where the law requires them to act, or when they refuse to perform a mere ministerial duty, a mandamus lies to compel them to act or to perform such ministerial duty. (United States, Miller, v. Raum, 135 U. S. 200. See United States v. Brown. 41 Fed. Rep. 481.)

Cannot control discretion.-A writ of mandamus will not be issued to control a judge in the exercise of his discretion (Ex parte Milwaukee R. Co., 5 Wall. 188); as in approving or rejecting a bond. (Ex parte Milwaukee R Co., 5 Wall. 188.) If an inferior tribunal has exercised its judgment in a matter wherein authorized by law, mandamus will not issue to reverse its judgment (Ex parte Taylor, 14 How. 3; Ex parte Many, 14 How. 24); so of orders in exercise of his authority (Ex parte Whitney, 13 Peters, 404); nor can it be compelled to vacate an order (Ex parte Loring, 94 U. S. 418); or to set aside a default and inquest thereon (Ex parte Roberts, 6 Peters, 216); nor to vacate an injunction issued in the case. (Ex parte Schwab, 98 U. S. 240.) If a mandate leaves the circuit judge to determine according to right and equity, mandamus will not issue to control his decision. (Ex parte Railway Co., 101 U. S. 711.) A mandamus will not be issued to control the conduct of a judge in proceedings which take place before the trial (Ex parte Bradstreet, 8 Peters, 588); as the allowance or refusal of amendments (Ex parie Bradstreet, 6 Peters, 774; S. C., 7 Peters, 634); or amend.