39); or to reinstate a case (Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 634); or to entertain a motion in a case (Ex parte - 13 Wall. 664); or to proceed to judgment; but a se must be made out. (Life & F. Ins. Co. v. AdPeters, 571.) If the circuit court possess an order a suit, mandamus is the remedy. (Livingston v. ois, 7 Cranch, 577.) A writ of mandamus may be to compel an inferior tribunal to decide a case, but ot direct the manner in which to decide or indicate racter of the judgment. (Life & F. Ins. Co. v. , 9 Peters, 571; Crawford v. Addison, 22 How. 174; parte Burtis, 103 U. S. 238.) The court will not, adamus, compel an inferior court to reverse a de(Ex parte Perry, 102 U. S. 183.) If a court renjudgment of dismissal for want of jurisdiction, but to enter it, mandamus lies to compel the entry (Ex Bradstreet, 6 Peters, 774); and if the judge dies begning the judgment, his successor may be compelled ndamus to do so. (Life & F. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 8 , 291; Life & F. Ins. Co. v. Adams, 9 Peters, 571.) be issued to compel a judge to sign a bill of excepEx parte Crane, 5 Peters, 190), but not if he says it rrect (Bradstreet v. Thomas, 4 Peters, 102); nor if not been properly prepared. It may be issued to 1 a judge to carry the judgment into effect. (StafUnion Bank, 16 How. 135; Stafford v. New OrC. & B. Co., 17 How. 283.) If an inferior court disor mistakes the mandate of the Supreme Court, the or omissions may be brought up by motion for a amus. (U. S. v. Fossatt, 21 How. 445; White v. U. Black, 501; Ex parte Dubuque & Pac. R. R. Co., 1 69.) The judgment in a mandamus proceeding is et to review. (Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S. 672.) Supreme Court may issue a mandamus to the court of s. (Ex parte Roberts, 15 Wall. 384; Ex parte United s, 16 Wall. 699). A writ of mandamus may properly ued by the Supreme Court of the United States to el the judge of an inferior court to settle and sign a f exceptions. (Re Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co.'s Peti128 U. S. 544.) The Supreme Court of the United s will not interfere by mandamus with the executive rs of the government in the exercise of their ordinary

2

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

matter, the intervention of the judicial department be invoked to compel action. (United States, on, v. Blaine, 139 U. S. 306.) Mandamus will not o compel the secretary of state to pay money in his to one party which is claimed by another party, and ht to which is in litigation between them. (Bayard ted States, White, 127 U. S. 246.) The courts will terfere with the executive officers of the governin the exercise of their ordinary official duties. ed States, Miller, v. Raum, 135 Ů. S. 200.) Mans cannot issue in a case where its effect is to direct trol the head of an executive department in the dise of an executive duty involving the exercise: of ent or discretion. (United States, Boynton, v. , 139 U. S. 306.) When executive officers refuse to all, where the law requires them to act, or when refuse to perform a mere ministerial duty, a mans lies to compel them to act or to perform such terial duty. (United States, Miller, v. Raum, 135 200. See United States v. Brown. 41 Fed. Rep. 481.)

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

ments to the record (Ex parte Many, 14 How. 24); or where he refuses to allow double pleas (Ex parte Davenport, 6 Peters, 661); or where he refuses to quash a writ of execution (Ex parte Flippen, 94 U. S. 348); or if he refuses to discharge defendant from arrest on bail for a different amount (Ex parte Taylor, 14 How. 3); or to compel a judge to proceed according to the rules of chancery practice (Ex parte Whitney, 13 Peters, 404); or to compel him to issue execution, although he refuses to do so (Ransom v. New York, 20 How. 581); or to control his discretion in granting or refusing a new trial (Life & F. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 8 Peters, 291; Ex parte Bradstreet, 8 Peters, 588); or if he refuses to issue a warrant for a deserter because he does not think the evidence sufficient. (U. S. v. Lawrence, 3 Dall. 45.) The judgment of the circuit court upon a plea to the jurisdiction will not be reviewed on a petition for mandamus. (Ex parte Railway Co., 103 U. S. 794.) This court cannot by mandamus compel an inferior court to reverse its decision. (Ex parte Burtis, 103 U. S. 238.) That mandamus will not issue to control judicial discretion. (Ex parte Milwaukee, etc. R. Co., 5 Wall. 188; Ex parte Hoard, 105 U. S. 578; Ex parte Virgina ("Virginia v. Rives") 100 U. S. 313; Ex parte Sawyer, 21 Wall. 235; Ex parte Denver, etc. R. Co., 101 U. S. 711.)

§ 204. Issues of fact.-The trial of issues of fact in the Supreme Court in all actions at law against citizens of the United States shall be by jury. (Rev. Stats. sec. 689.)

$ 205. Appellate jurisdiction.-The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction in the cases hereinafter specially provided for. (Rev. Stats. sec. 690.)

Note. See U. S. Const., art. III, sec. 2, cl. 2; Wales v. Whitney, 114 U. S. 564. The appellate powers of the Supreme Court are given by the Constitution, but they are limited and regulated by statute. (Durosseau v. U. S., 6 Cranch, 307.) Congress has described the jurisdiction, and this description implies a negative to the exercise of such

llate power is not comprehended within it. (Durousv. U. S., 6 Cranch. 314; U. S. v. Young, 94 U. S. Ex parte Vallandigham, 1 Wall. 251; Railroad Co. v. it, 98 U. S. 401.)

ppellate jurisdiction.-In every case to which the cial power extends, and in which original jurisdiction t given, the Supreme Court may exercise its appellate diction. (Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; Marbury Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; Ex parte Vallandigham, 1 1. 252; Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 98; Martin v. Hunter, heat. 304.) Where original jurisdiction is founded he character of the parties, the judicial power cannot exercised in its appellate form (Osborn v. Bank of ted States, 9 Wheat, 738); but where it is founded on nature of the controversy the appellate jurisdiction ches. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Cohen v. ginia, 6 Wheat. 264.) The essential criterion of apite jurisdiction is, that it raises and corrects proceedin a cause already instituted. (Marbury v. Madison, ranch, 137.) In prize cases the Supreme Court can cise appellate jurisdiction only. (The Alicia, 7 Wall. ) The appellate power is not limited to any particucourts. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Cohens v. ginia, 6 Wheat. 264; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331; eman v. Booth, 21 How. 506; 3 Wis. 1; Ferris v. ver, 11 Cal. 176; Piqua Bank v. Knoup, 6 Ohio St. 16 How. 369.) It may be exercised over territorial rts (Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 244; Hunt v. Palao, 4 v. 589; Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 173), but not withlegislation by Congress (McNulty v. Batty, 10 How. or over State courts on questions involving the conutionality of legal enactments. (Bridge Prop. v. Hoen etc. Co., 1 Wall. 116; Furman v. Nichol, 8 Wall. Delmas v. Ins. Co. 14 Wall. 667; Home Ins. Co. v. gusta, 93 U. S. 116; Ferris v. Coover, 11 Cal. 176; see Johnson v. Gordon, 4 Cal. 368.) But it cannot cise appellate jurisdiction over the court of claims rdon v. U. S., 2 Wall. 561), nor can Congress grant ellate jurisdiction on the inferior courts from the isions of the State courts. (Patrie v. Murray, 43 b. 323; Wetherbee v. Johnson, 14 Mass. 412.) The