ing the rights and independence of the bar, as well as the dignity and authority of the court. Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9.

45. The local law of the Territory of Minnesota has regulated the relation between courts and attorneys and counselors, but has not essentially changed the common-law principle. 1b.

46. The Minnesota statute authorizes the court to dismiss an attorney or counselor if he does not maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers, or for not conducting himself with fidelity to the court. Ib.

The Supreme Court of the territory dismissed the relator from the office of counselor and attorney of the court, stating in the sentence of dismissal that he was guilty of the offences above mentioned; but not specifying the act or acts which, in the opinion of the court, constituted the offence. 1b.

47. The order of dismissal is a judicial act, done in the exercise of a judicial discretion vested in the court by law; and a mandamus cannot be issued by a superior or appellate court, commanding it to reverse its decision and restore the relator to the office he has lost. Ib.

48. (Dec., 1857.) A rule laid upon the district judge of the State of Texas, to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued for him to allow an appeal in a certain case; but, upon an examination of the case, the mandamus refused. Mussina v. Cavazos, 20 How. 280.

49. (Dec., 1857.) Where there was an order of the Circuit Court to set aside a judgment upon payment by the defendant of the costs which had accrued up to that time, the plaintiff's counsel, by not insisting upon the payment of such costs, thereby impliedly waived the condition upon which the judgment was to be vacated, and cannot proceed upon the judgment as being still in force.

Other circumstances lead to the opinion that it was the understanding of both sides that the judgment should be vacated.

This court therefore overrules a motion for a mandamus directing the court below to set aside the order vacating the judgment, or for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue. Ex parte Ransom v. City of New York, 20 How. 581.

50. (Dec., 1858.) If the court below, to which a mandate is sent, does not proceed to execute it, or disobeys and mistakes its meaning, the party aggrieved may, by motion for a mandamus, at any time, bring the errors or omissions before this court for correction. United States v. Fossatt, 21 How. 445.

51. (Dec., 1859.) [Where the matter in controversy was the right to the mayoralty in Georgetown.]

The case is not a proper one for a mandamus from this court to the judges below, or for a rule upon them to show cause why they should not carry out the judgment of ouster. United States ex rel. Crawford v. Addison, 22 How. 174.

52. (Dec., 1860.) A writ of mandamus does not issue in virtue of any prerogative power, and, in modern practice, is nothing more than an ordinary action at law, in cases where it is the appropriate remedy. Kentucky v. Ohio, 24 How. 66. 53. It was the duty of the executive authority of Ohio, upon the demand made by the Governor of Kentucky, and the production of the indictment, duly certified, to cause Lago to be delivered up to the agent of the Governor of Kentucky, who was appointed to demand and receive him. Ib.

54. The duty of the Governor of Ohio was merely ministerial, and he had no right to exercise any discretionary power as to the nature and character of the crime charged in the indictment. Ib.

55. But Congress cannot coerce a State officer, as such, to perform any duty, by act of Congress. The State officer may perform it, if he thinks proper, and it may be a moral duty to perform it; but, if he refuses, no law of Congress can compel him. Ib.

56. The Governor of Ohio cannot, through the judiciary or any other department of the general government, be compelled to deliver up Lago; and, upon that ground only, this motion for a mandamus was overruled. Ib.

57. (Dec., 1861.) This court will not award a mandamus to the judge of the District Court, commanding him to permit the intervention of one claimant in a proceeding instituted by another, for the confirmation of a distinct title under a Mexican grant. White v. United States, 1 Black, 501.

58. (Dec., 1863.) When this court, under the twentyfourth section of the Judiciary Act, reverses a judgment, on a case stated and brought here on error, remanding the case, with a mandate to the court below to enter judgment for the defendant, the court below has no authority but to execute the mandate, and it is final to that court. Hence such court cannot, after entering the judgment, hear affidavits or testimony, and grant a rule for a new trial; and, if it does grant such a rule, a mandamus will issue from this court, ordering it to vacate the rule. Ex parte D. & P. Railroad, 1 Wall. 69.

59. (Dec., 1864.) A party asking this court for a mandamus to an inferior court, to make a rule on one of its ministerial officers, as the marshal, must show clearly his interest in the matter which he presents as the ground of his application. Ex parte Fleming, 2 Wall. 759.

60. (Dec., 1866.) The statute of Illinois which enacts. that when a judgment is given against a county, the county commissioner shall draw a warrant upon the treasurer for the amount, "which shall be paid as other county debts," cannot be taken advantage of on error, in case of an application for a mandamus, to levy a tax to pay a judgment, where such a warrant was applied for and refused, and where there are no funds in the county treasury with which to pay the judgment. Supervisors v. United States, 4 Wall. 435.

61. (Dec., 1866.) Mandamus cannot be made to perform

the functions of a writ of error.

Whiteley, 4 Wall. 522.

Commissioner of Patents v.

62. (Dec., 1867.) Mandamus from this court will not lie. to reverse a judgment of a court below, refusing a mandamus against the Secretary of the Treasury, commanding him to pay a sum of money awarded to the relator, by the Secretary of War, in pursuance of a joint resolution of Congress, and to compel such court below to issue one. Ex parte De Groot, 6 Wall. 497.

63. (Dec., 1868.) Mandamus lies from this court, to an inferior court, to restore an attorney at law disbarred by the latter court, when it had no jurisdiction in the matter, as (ex. gr.) for a contempt committed by him before another court. Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall. 365.

64. (Dec., 1869.) The extent to which the writ of mandamus from the federal courts can give relief against decisions in the state courts involves a question respecting the process of the federal courts; and, that being so, it is peculiarly the province of this court to decide all questions which concern the subject. Butz v. City of Muscatine, 8 Wall. 575.

65. (Dec., 1871.) Mandamus to the Secretary of the Treasury to compel him to deliver a warrant, under the act of July 27, 1861, directing him to refund to the Governor of any State the expenses properly incurred in raising troops to aid in suppressing the Rebellion, refused, the Secretary not having been asked to pay the money until the time limited in the appropriation act, for the appropriation to take effect had expired, the right of the court to issue such order under other circumstances not being meant to be passed upon. Commonwealth v. Boutwell, 13 Wall. 526.

66. (Dec., 1871.) When the Court of Claims, on a motion for a new trial, under the second section of the act of June 25, 1868, above referred to, has not reached the consideration of the motion on its merits, but has dismissed it under an assumption that they had no jurisdiction to grant it, man

damus, directing the court to proceed with the motion, is the proper remedy. Appeal is not a proper one. Ex parte Russell, 13 Wall. 664.

67. But if the Court of Claims have granted an appeal, mandamus will not lie to cause them simply to vacate the allowance of it. lb.

68. Semble, however, that it might lie to do so, and to proceed to the hearing of the motion for a new trial. Ib.

69. The proper course, in a case where the Court of Claims improperly (from supposed want of jurisdiction) refused to grant to the United States a motion for a new trial, made under the act of 1868, above referred to, and the United States appealed, stated to be, for one or the other party to move to dismiss the appeal, and then for the United States to ask for a distinct mandamus on the Court of Claims to proceed, this court stating that the motion to dismiss might be made at any time when the court was in session, and that it was not necessary to await the arrival of the term to which the record ought to be returned. Ib.

70. (Dec., 1871.) Held, that mandamus would not lie to the circuit judge to compel him to entertain jurisdiction of the cause on appeal, and to hear and decide the same on the merits thereof; and that this conclusion of this court was not to be altered by the fact that, owing to the sum in controversy being less than $2,000, no appeal or writ of error from the Circuit Court to this court existed. Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 152.

71. (Dec., 1872.) If the Circuit Court dismisses or declines to hear the matter [of error to the District Court], a mandamus will lie to compel it to proceed to final judgment. Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258.

72. (Oct., 1873.) In the absence of statutory provision. to the contrary, a mandamus against an officer of the government abates on his death or retirement from office. His successor in office cannot be brought in, by way of amend