Writs of Prohibition and Mandamus.

SEC. 688. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue writs of prohibition in 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 ambassador, or other public minister, or a consul or vice-consul, is a party. 24 Sept., 1789, c. 20, s. 13, v. 1, p. 80.

SECTION 688. PROHIBITION.- DECISIONS, 1-14.

1. (Aug., 1795.) This was a motion for a prohibition to the District Court of Pennsylvania, where a libel had been filed by James Yard, and process of attachment thereupon issued against the "Cassius," an armed corvette belonging to the French Republic, and Samuel Davis, her commander.

BY THE COURT: We have consulted together on this motion; and, though a difference of opinion exists, a majority of the court are clearly of opinion that the motion ought to be granted. Therefore let a prohibition issue. United States v. Peters, District Judge, 3 Dall. 121, 129.

2. (Jan., 1845.) This court has no revising power over the decrees of the District Court sitting in bankruptcy; nor is it authorized to issue a writ of prohibition to it in any case, except where the District Court is proceeding as a court of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Ex parte Christy, 3 How. 292.

3. (Dec., 1861.) A writ of prohibition cannot issue from this court in cases where there is no appellate power given by law, nor any special authority to issue the writ. Ex parte Gordon, 1 Black, 503.

4. Neither a writ of error, writ of prohibition, nor certiorari,

will lie from this court to a Circuit Court of the United States in a criminal case. Ib.

5. . . . This court, having no appellate power over the proceeding, cannot prohibit a ministerial officer from performing the duty which the Circuit Court has legally imposed upon

him. Ib.

6. (Dec., 1863.) In a case where this court, after an examination of very voluminous records, did not doubt that the court below was acting upon a sincere conviction that it possessed full power and authority to make certain orders, which this court now decided that it had made under a misapprehension of its powers, and without authority of law, and that it was influenced by a high sense of duty, and by what it believed to be for the best interest of all parties concerned, in what this court characterized as "a most complicated, difficult, and severely contested cause," and that it needed but to be advised by the opinion of this court, on a motion which had been made for a writ of prohibition against it, by the said court below; this court, for the present, withheld the appropriate remedy, giving its opinion that the court below had no jurisdiction, and was acting against law, with liberty to counsel to apply hereafter to this court if necessary. CATRON, J., dissenting. Bronson v. La Crosse Railroad Co., 1 Wall. 405.

7. (Dec., 1866.) The writ of prohibition can only be used to prevent the doing of some act which is about to be done, and can never be used as a remedy for acts already completed. United States v. Hoffman, 4 Wall. 158.

8. Therefore where the court to which the writ should be issued has already disposed of the case, so that nothing remains which that court can do, either by way of executing its judgment or otherwise, no prohibition will be granted. Ib.

9. And this is true, though the final disposition of the case was made after service on the judge of a rule to show cause why the writ should not issue, and though other cases of the same character may be pending in the same court. Ib.

10. (Dec., 1870.) Proceedings to confiscate real estate, under the act of July 17, 1862, entitled "An Act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels," &c., are not “ "proceedings in admiralty," although the act declares that they "shall be in rem, and conform as near as may be to proceedings in admiralty, or in revenue cases." Ex parte Graham, 10 Wall. 541.

11. Accordingly, no writ of prohibition from this court to a District Court lies in the case of such proceedings; the writ being confined by the judiciary act to cases where the District Courts are proceeding as courts of admiralty. Ib.

12. (Dec., 1872.) Where the Circuit Court of the United States proceeds to exercise jurisdiction under the twentythird section of the act of May 31, 1870, entitled "An Act to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in the several states of this Union, and for other purposes,' an appeal will lie to this court from its final decree. Ex parte Warmouth, 17 Wall. 64.

13. This court has no power to issue the writ of prohibition in such a cause until such appeal is taken. Ib.

14. (Oct., 1877.) Whether a writ of prohibition should be issued to the District Court, when proceeding as a court of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, depends upon the facts stated in the record upon which the court is called to act. Matters dehors the record, which are set forth in the petition for the writ, cannot be considered here. Ex parte Easton, 5 Otto, 68.

SECTION 688. MANDAMUS. DECISIONS, 1-91.

1. (Aug., 1792.) Whether the Attorney General is entitled to move ex officio for a mandamus to the Circuit Court, quære. Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409.

2. (Feb. 1795.) A district judge acts judicially when he

determines what evidence is requisite for issuing a warrant to apprehend a French deserter, under the ninth article of the Consular Convention; and a mandamus will not lie to compel him to issue the warrant, contrary to such determination. United States v. Judge Lawrence, 3 Dall. 42, 53.

3. (Feb., 1803.) The Supreme Court of the United States. has not power to issue a mandamus to a Secretary of State of the United States, it being an exercise of original jurisdiction not warranted by the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137.

4. (Feb., 1813.) A writ of error does not lie to an order of the court below, to stay proceedings finally, upon a suggestion of the Attorney for the United States, in a case to which the United States are not parties; but the court will award a mandamus nisi, in the nature of a procedendo. Livingston v. Dorgenois, 7 Cranch, 577.

5. (Feb., 1817.) This court has not jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to the register of a land-office of the United States, commanding him to enter the application of a party for certain tracts of land, according to the seventh section of the act of May 10, 1800, “providing for the sale of the lands of the United States northwest of the Ohio, and above the mouth of Kentucky River," which mandamus had been refused by the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, upon a submission by the register to the jurisdiction of that court, being the highest court of law or equity in that State. Me Cluny v. Silliman, 2 Wheat. 369.

6. Cases where the courts of the United States have, or have not, authority to issue writs of mandamus. Ib., note a, 370.

7. (Feb., 1824.) Quare as to the authority of this court to interfere, by mandamus, in the case of the removal or suspension of an attorney of the District and Circuit Courts. Ex parte Burr, 9 Wheat. 529.

8. Whatever may be the authority of this court in that

respect, it will not be exercised, unless where the conduct of the court below has been grossly irregular and unjust. Ib.

9. (Jan., 1828.) The court refused to issue a mandamus to the Circuit Court for the County of Washington, commanding that court to strike off a plea which the court had permitted the defendant to put in, and to compel the defendant to enter another plea, which the plaintiff's counsel deemed the proper plea, under the provisions of an act of the legislature of Maryland, upon which the proceedings were founded, incorporating the Bank of Columbia. Bank of Columbia v. Sweeny, 1 Pet. 567.

10. (Jan., 1830.) This is not a case in which the judge has refused to sign a bill of exceptions. The judge has signed such a bill as he thinks correct. The object of the rule is to oblige the judge to sign a particular bill of exceptions which has been offered to him. The court granted the rule to show cause; and the judge has shown cause, by saying he has done all that can be required from him, and that the bill offered is not such a bill as he can sign. The court cannot order him to sign such a bill. Ex parte Bradstreet, 4 Pet. 102.

11. (Jan., 1831.) The Supreme Court has power to issue a mandamus directed to a Circuit Court of the United States, commanding the court to sign a bill of exceptions, in a case tried before such court. Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 190.

12. In England, the writ of mandamus is defined to be a command issuing in the king's name, from the Court of King's Bench, and directed to any person, corporation, or inferior court of judicature within the king's dominions, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, which appertains to their office and duty, and which the Court of King's Bench has previously determined, or at least supposes to be consonant to right and justice. It issues to the judges of any inferior court commanding them to do justice according to the powers of their office, wherever the same is delayed. It is apparent that this definition and this