by JUSTICE BALDWIN, in the Crane case, is a very learned and interesting review of the old law as to the issue of the writ of mandamus by superior to inferior Courts. The power to issue this writ in aid of its jurisdiction is also possessed by the Circuit Courts of Appeals.2 If a judge of a lower Court refuses to take jurisdiction in a case in which his jurisdiction is clear, a mandamus may issue to require him to do so.3 It should be borne in mind, however, that if the case has proceeded to such an extent that a writ of error could be sued out, the writ of mandamus will not issue. It is granted, as a rule, only when there is no other adequate remedy.1 The writ will not issue to control the discretion of a lower Court. It will issue to compel the Court to exercise a discretion when it has refused to do so.5 547. Petition to Revise in Matter of Law.-Where a question arises in a proceeding in bankruptcy, as distinguished from a controversy in bankruptcy proceedings, section 24b of the Bankrupt Act permits the filing of a petition to revise in matter of law. This petition may be used to review interlocutory orders and frequently is. It takes up questions of law only-not of fact. The petition is filed either with the clerk of the proper Circuit Court of Appeals or with the clerk of the Court appealed from. It should recite the proceedings in the Court below, should point out every question of law involved, and state the ruling of the District. Court thereon. A certified copy of so much of the record as shows what the issue of law was and how it arose must accompany the petition. In this circuit there is no rule of the Circuit Court of Appeals fixing the time within which such petition must be filed. It may, therefore, be filed at any time within six months.1 In some circuits, the rules require McClellan vs. Carland, 217 U. S. 268. In re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653. In re Pennsylvania Co., 137 U. S. 451. Ex parte Morgan, 114 U. S. 174. 1 Kenova Loan & Trust Co. vs. Graham, 135 Fed. 717. it to be filed within ten or fifteen days. Due notice of it must be given to the other party. 548. Prohibition.-Sometimes the most effectual way in which a superior Court may exercise its appellate jurisdiction is by a writ of prohibition directed to an inferior Court forbidding it to assume a jurisdiction to which it is not entitled. Section 234 of the Judicial Code empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs of prohibition to the District Courts when sitting as Courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. It is probable that this provision, which has come down from the original Judiciary Act, is a survival of the old practice of the Court of King's Bench, which was much in the habit of issuing prohibitions to the Courts of Admiralty to keep them within the narrow limits of admiralty jurisdiction fixed by the English Courts of common law. This grant of power permits the Supreme Court in admiralty matters to issue the writ of prohibition to a District Court even in cases in which a direct appeal from the latter to the former would not lie. With this exception the Supreme Court cannot, in any case in which it has neither original nor appellate jurisdiction, grant prohibition, mandamus or certorari. Where the writ of prohibition is necessary to protect or further the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a case in which that jurisdiction exists, the writ may issue; otherwise not. The same rule governs its issue by the Circuit Courts of Appeals. 549. Certification of Questions to the Supreme Court. By section 239 of the Judicial Code the Circuit Court of Appeals is authorized at any time to certify to the Supreme Court of the United States any questions or propositions of law for the proper decisions of which it desires the instructions of that Court. When the questions are certified up, the Supreme Court may do either one of two things. It may give the instructions. If it does they are binding upon the Circuit Court of Appeals, or it may require that the whole record and cause he sent up for its considera tion. If it takes the latter course it is required to decide the whole matter in controversy in the same matter as if the case had been brought to it by a writ of error or appeal. In this class of cases the Supreme Court is quite insistent that the Court below shall not evade its responsibility of decision. Not infrequently the questions certified by the Court below have been so framed that they practically ask the Supreme Court how to decide the cause, which may be a more or less complicated one of mixed fact and law. Under such circumstances the Supreme Court invariably refuses to answer at all. Alabama Great Southern Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 200 U S., 206.... 223 Alabama, Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. 155 U. S., 482.... 140 Amador & Sacramento Canal Co., Cashman v 118 U. S., 58. 197 Ambler v. Eppinger, 137 U. S., 480...... 193 American Colortype Co. v. Continental Co., 188 U. S., 104.. ... 192 American Construc. Co. v. Jacksonville Ry. Co., 148 U. S., 372.. 359 Armstrong v. Treasurer of Athens County, 16 Peters, 285. 335 .10, 262, 263 Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., Macon Grocery Co v. 215 U. S., 501.... 129, 164 Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U. S., 187.. 212 B. Balaklala Consol. Copper Co., Reardon v. 193 Fed. 189. 273 Baltimore City, Barney v. 6 Wall., 288. 180 Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Bates, 119 U S., 467. 227 301 U. S., 612.... 85 Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., Marshall v. 16 How., 328.. 145 .231, 233 61 Fed., 705..... 198 Bank of North America, Turner v. 4 Dallas, 8, 10, 11...9, 13, 23, 201 Bank of United States v Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61. Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205........ PAGE 210 Barron v. Burnside, 121 U. S. 186. Barrow Steamship Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S 100. . 218 163 .117, 118 Barry v. Mercien, 5 How., 103.. 115 350 Bates, B. & O. R. R. Co. v. 119 U. S., 467.. 227 116 105 301 74 .345, 363 68 266 69 331 Big Vein Coal Co. of West Va. v. Read, 229 U. S., 31. Board of Commissioners v. Gorman, 19 Wall., 661.. Booth, Northern Pacific R. R. Co v. 152 U. S., 671. Bors v. Preston, 111 U. S., 252. Boske v. Comingore, 177 U. S., 459.. Co. v. 202 Fed., 693. Bowerbank, Hodgson v. 5 Cranch, 303. 103 88 324 .21, 90 257 Bosserman-Gates Live Stock & Loan Co., Platte Valley Cattle Botsford, Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. 141 U. S., 250. Boynton, Mason City & Fort Dodge R. R. Co v. 204 U. S., 570... 208 267 271 .17, 264 Brailsford, United States v. 5 Wheat., 184.... Bray, U. S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. 225 U. S., 214.. Breedlove v. Nicolet, 7 Peters, 428. Breese v. United States, 143 Fed., 250. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co., Hollins v. 150 U. S., 371.. 63 .345, 346 149 276 234 140 |