Monr. 9); or to secure a revision of the judgment of the court. Little v. Morris, 10 Tex. 263; People v. Judge, 32 Mich. 190. Where a judge has determined that under the statutes of the State he is disqualified from hearing a cause, a mandamus does not lie to make him reverse that decision and to hear the cause. State of Florida v. Van Ness, 15 Fla. 317. Some of the decisions in the foregoing cases rested upon the ground that there was other specific and adequate remedy for the relator, which is always, as we have seen, sufficient to defeat an application for a mandamus. On this ground a mandamus will always be refused. Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 152; Mansfield v. Fuller, 50 Mo. 338.

§ 4. Inferior courts in criminal cases. The general principles of the law applicable to civil cases are equally applicable to criminal cases, and the judgment and discretion of the court cannot be controlled by mandamus, nor can such remedy be resorted to against the action of the court or judge, in relation to any matter where there is other adequate remedy at law. An erroneous decision cannot ordinarily be made the ground of review on mandamus. Regina v. The Justices, 28 Eng. L. & E. 160. Nor will obedience to writ of habeas corpus be enforced by mandamus. People v. Edwards, 66 Ill. 59. A remedial writ will not be directed to a judicial officer, after his office has expired, to compel him to vacate an illegal or void order. Ex parte Trice, 53 Ala. 546.

§ 5. Boards of public officers. The discretion of a board of auditors cannot be reviewed by mandamus (Auditorial Board v. Hendrick, 20 Tex. 60); nor can the action of selectmen and the clerk in deciding upon the qualification of electors. Freeman v. Selectmen of New

Haven, 34 Conn. 406.

And it has been held that it would not lie against boards of public officers in the following cases:

At the suit of a private citizen, to compel a public board to perform an omitted duty, in a case where the relator is not directly injured by its non-performance (People v. Regents of University, 4 Mich. 98); to correct the judgment of a board of police of Mississippi (Board of Police v. Grant, 17 Miss. 77); to review the discretion of the local board of trustees of common schools, in respect to the discipline and management of a school (People v. School Officers, 18 Abb. Pr. 165); to compel school directors to exonerate and discharge a property owner from a school tax assessed by them against them (School Directors v. Anderson, 45 Penn. St. 388); to compel the managers of an election of sheriff to return a candidate as duly elected, after they have already certified to the governor that the election was null and void

(State v. Bruce, 3 Brev. [S. C.] 264); or to dictate to a board of supervisors and determine what its judgment shall be, where it acts judicially. Tilden v. Sacramento Co., 41 Cal. 68.

§ 6. Supervisors. A mandamus will not be allowed against a board of supervisors in the following cases:

1. To compel them to issue a certificate of election to one whom they have declared not to be elected to an office. Magee v. Supervisors, 10 Cal. 376.

2. To order a special election claimed to be rendered necessary by the resignation of certain officers. People v. Supervisors, 14 Cal. 102. 3. To compel the clerk of the board to countersign bonds which the board are bound to issue, when he has not been directed by the latter so to do, and they have given him no opportunity to do it. People v. San Francisco, 27 Cal. 655.

4. To compel them to allow the amount claimed by a constable for serving subpoenas, the allowance of the claim being a matter of discretion. Ex parte Farrington, 2 Cow. 407.

5. To compel them to allow the salary of an associate judge of the general sessions, there being other adequate remedy at law for the relator. Ex parte Lynch, 2 Hill, 45.

6. To compel them to lay out a road where the necessary proceedings have not been had for that purpose. State v. Supervisors, 9 Wis. 554.

7. To compel them to allow a claim where they have a discretion as to the amount of a claim to be allowed against the county for services (Hull v. Supervisors, 19 Johns. 259; Ex parte Benson, 7 Cow. 363); or to draw an order upon the treasury if there is no money in the treasury to pay it. Commonwealth v. Commissioners, 5 Binn. 536.

7. Treasurers of counties. The cases where the county treas urer cannot be compelled by mandamus to act may be illustrated by the following:

He cannot be compelled to pay a claim against the county where the supervisors exceeded their jurisdiction in allowing the claim. People v. Lawrence, 6 Hill, 244. See, also, as illustrating the doctrine in this case, The People v. Stout, 23 Barb. 349.

§ 8. State executive officers. It has been held that a mandamus would not lie against the governor of a State to compel him to grant a commission (Hawkins v. Governor, 1 Ark. 570); or to perform a ministerial act devolved upon him by the laws of the State (Low v. Towns, Governor, 8 Ga. 360); or to return a bill which, having passed the general assembly, and having been certified by the proper officers of both houses, is presented to him for his consideration (Peo

ple v. Yates, 40 Ill. 120); or to issue a certificate to a railroad company, provided for by an act of congress, until the provisions of the law have been complied with. State v. Kirkwood, 14 Iowa, 162.

So it has been held, in Missouri, that the law, requiring the governor to grant a commission to the person who has received a proper certifi cate from the county court, of election as a county judge, is not a mere ministerial duty, but an official act imposed upon him by the constitution, and that the supreme court has no power to issue a mandamus to compel him to do so. State v. Fletcher, 39 Mo. 388. Where no action can be maintained for a claim against the State, the courts will not permit them to be enforced circuitously by a mandamus against the treasurer. Weston v. Dane, 51 Me. 461. And where an auditor of State possessed judicial powers, it was held that the courts would not permit an inquiry into the exercise of them by mandamus. People v. Adam, 3 Mich. 427. So, in Missouri, it has been held that a mandamus would not lie to compel the State auditor to audit and settle a bill of costs, even though certified by the county judge and circuit attorney, as required by law (State v. Fletcher, 39 Mo. 388); or to compel the State treasurer to pay over the principal and interest of State bonds, without a special act of the legislature authorizing and commanding him to do so. State v. Bishop, 42 Mo. 504. So, in Texas, it has been held that a mandamus does not lie to compel the State treasurer to pay a warrant signed by the governor and attorney-general, acting as a board of school commissioners, though in accordance with the law, as his action in the premises is official, and he is not subject to the judiciary in that respect, but is the judge of his official duties. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Randolph, 24 Tex. 317.

And a State treasurer cannot, by mandamus, be compelled to pay a debt which the general assembly has constitutionally directed him not to pay. Wilson v. Jenkins, 72 N. C. 5; Shaffer v. Jenkins, id. 275. § 9. Municipal officers. It has been held that a mandamus would not lie in the following cases: 1. In favor of one claiming to be clerk of a city to compel his predecessor to deliver up the books and papers of the office where he has another specific remedy under the statutes of the State. People v. Stevens, 5 Hill, 616.

2. In favor of a bidder on proposals for estimates where there is no contract made by him, and approved, as required by law, as until then he has no clear legal right. People v. Croton Aqueduct Board, 26 Barb. 240.

3. In favor of the holder of a warrant of a city, drawn by the comptroller, where there is doubt whether the person is entitled to the

money, there being another claimant, who and the mayor refuses to sign the warrant. 31; 32 How. (N. Y.) 17.

has sued the city therefor, People v. Booth, 49 Barb.

10. County and town officers. Where a county treasurer has no money in his hands with which to pay claims against the county, and it is not within his power or duty as treasurer to provide them, a mandamus should not issue to compel payment. People v. Edmonds, 19 Barb. 472; Moses on Mand. 99.

So, a mandamus will not lie to compel a county auditor to draw an order on the county treasurer, where he has not the authority to fix the amount, unless such amount has been ascertained and liquidated by the proper authority. Commissioners v. Auditor, 1 Ohio St. 322. So, a mandamus was refused to compel the clerk of a school district to amend his records, where it appeared he had ceased to be clerk, and had removed without the jurisdiction of the court. Mason v. Dist. No. 14, 20 Vt. 487.

As the granting of the writ depends to some extent upon the discretion of the court, it would appear proper for the court to look into the facts returned, and if it should appear that the collector against whom the mandamus was sought would have no authority to collect the same, the court should refuse to issue the process. Waldron v. Lee, 5 Pick. 333.

§ 11. Private corporations. This extraordinary legal remedy will not be allowed in favor of or against corporations where there are other general and adequate remedies at law, or where there is a specific remedy provided by statute. King v. Water Works Co., 6 Ad. & E. 355 ; People v. Supervisors, etc., 12 Barb. 217; Tarver v. Commissioners, 17 Ala. 527. Nor will it be granted unless the applicant has a clear right to the performance of the duty, and will be injured by the non-performance (People v. Supervisors, 64 N. Y. [19 Sick.] 600; People v. Thompson, 25 Barb. 73; People v. Head, 25 Ill. 325); nor where the performance of the act is physically impossible (State v. Perine, 34 N. J. Law, 254; Silverthorne v. Warren, R. Co., 33 N. J. 173; State v. Police Jury, 22 La. Ann. 611); nor to compel the doing of an act prohibited by an injunction (Railroad Co. v. Wyandot Co., 7 Ohio St. 278); nor to compel the doing of an unlawful act (Ross v. Lane, 11 Miss. 695; Gilespie v. Wood, 4 Humph. [Tenn.] 437); nor where the proceeding would be ineffectual, as to admit a person to a medical society, from which he would be liable to immediate expulsion (Ex parte Paine, 1 Hill, 665); nor to prevent an anticipated failure of duty. State v. Carney, 3 Kans. 88; State v. Dubuclet, 24 La. Ann. 16.

And in Illinois a mandamus does not lie to compel a railroad company to institute proceedings to condemn lands, whereof they have obtained possession. Smith v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 67 Ill. 191.

§ 12. Comptrollers, auditors and canvassers. It has been held that until there was an appropriation for the purpose of paying the salary of a judge, a mandamus would not lie against the auditor of public accounts to pay the same. Ex parte Tully, 4 Ark. 220. And a patent for land cannot be set aside or vacated by a mandamus requiring the auditor to issue another patent for the same land. People v. Auditor, 3 Ill. 567. Nor will a mandamus issue to compel an auditor to enter taxes upon a tax duplicate, until the time arrives when the law requires the duty to be performed. Zanesville v. Auditor, 5 Ohio St. 589.

And where it appeared that it was the duty of the comptroller to audit, adjust and settle the accounts of all officers, and also to decide upon the justice of all claims against or by the State, and he refused to pay a sheriff certain fees to which he was entitled, and the latter applied for a mandamus, it was held that the duty of the comptroller was not merely ministerial, but discretionary; and that he could not be controlled in the exercise of this discretion by mandamus. Towle v. State, 3 Fla. 202. So it was held that the comptroller of the city of New York could not be compelled by mandamus to draw his warrant for the payment of charges which were not by law county charges, although audited by the board of supervisors. People v. Haws, 12 Abb. Pr. 192; 21 How. (N. Y.) 117. And it does not lie against said comptroller to compel the payment of a claim against the corporation, until it is audited by the finance department. People v. Brennan, 18 Abb. Pr. 100.

As to canvassers, their duties may be both ministerial and judicial, or either. As to merely ministerial acts, as we have noticed, they inay by mandamus be required to perform them; but as to their discretionary acts or judicial functions, the proceeding will not lie. Thus, where they are, among other things, empowered to hear and determine all contested elections, their judgment in relation thereto cannot be reviewed by mandamus. Grier v. Shackleford, 3 Brev. 491; Mayor of Vicksburgh v. Rainwater, 47 Miss. 547.

The general rule, that courts will not interfere with the exercise of a discretion or final judgment of canvassers, is illustrated by the following cases: Arberry v. Beavers, 6 Tex. 457; People v. Supervisors, 12 Barb. 217; State v. Rodman, 43 Mo. 256; People v. Stevens, 5 Hill, 616; State v. Commissioners, 8 Nev. 309.

§ 13. Miscellaneous. As we have referred to the nature and character of the remedy by mandamus, and shown when and where it could