CERTIORARI. In Practice. A writ issued by a superior to an inferior court of record, requiring the latter to send in to the former some proceeding therein pending, or the records and proceedings in some cause already terminated in cases where the proce dure is not according to the course of the common law.
The office of the writs of certiorari and man damus is often much the same. It is the practice of the United States Supreme Court, upon a sug gestion of any defect in the transcript of the record sent up into that court upon a writ of error, to allow a special certiorari, requiring the court below to certify more fully. 3 Da11. 411; 7 Cranch, 288; 3 How. 553. The same result might also be effected by a writ of mandamus. The two remedies are, when addressed to an inferior court of record, from a superior court, requiring the return of a record, much the same. But where diminution of the record is suggested in the inferior court, and the purpose is to obtain a more perfect record, and not merely a more perfect copy or transcript, it is believed that the writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy.
In many of the states, the writ produces the same result in proceedings given by statute, such as the proceedings for obtaining damages under the mill acts, highway acts, pauper laws, etc., as the'writ of error does when the proceedings are according to the course of the common law. Where the lower court is to be required to proceed in a cause, a writ of procedendo or mandamus is the proper re medy.
2. The writ lies in most of the states of the United States to remove from the lower courts proceedings which are created and regulated by merely, for the purpose of re vision, 2 Mass. 89 ; 11 id. 466 ; 13 Pick. Mass. 195 ; 8 Me. 293 ; 5 Binn. Penn. 27 ; 5 Serg. & R. Penn. 174 ; 3 Halst. N. J. 123 ; 7 id. 368 ; 2 Dutch. N. J. 49; 4 Hayw. Tenn. 100 ; 2 Yerg. Tenn. 173 ; 1 Gill & J. Md. 196 ; 8 Vt. 271; 1 Ohio, 383 ; 2 Va. Cas. 270 ; 16 Johns. N. Y. 50 ; 20 id. 300 ; 1 Ala. 95; 8 Cal. 58; 6 Mich. 137; and to complete the proceedings when the lower court refuses to do so, upon erroneous grounds. 1 Hayw. No. C. 302 ; 2 Ark. 73. In England, 13 Eng. L. & Eq. 129 ; 1 Barnew. & C. 142 ; 3 Salk. 78, and in some states of the United States, 3 Harr. & M'H. Md. 115 ; Coxe, N. J. 287 ; 1 South. N. J. 40 ; 2 id. 539 ; 7 Cow. N. Y. 141 ; 2 Yerg. Tenn. 173 ; 2 Whart. Penn. 117 ; 2 Va. Cas. 268 ' • 2 Murph. No. C. 100 ; 1 Ala. 95; 5 R. I. 385, the writ may also be issued to remove criminal causes to a supe rior court. But see 10 Ohio, 345.
3. It is used also as an auxiliary process to obtain a full return to other process, as when, for example, the record of an interim court is brought before a superior court by appeal, writ of error, or other lawful mode, and there is a manifest defect or suggestion of diminution, to obtain a perfect transcript and all papers. 3 Dall. Penn. 413 ; 7 Cranch,
288 ; 9 Wheat. 526 . 3 Johns. N. Y. 23 ; 2 Cow. N. Y. 38 ; 2 South. N. J. 270, 551; 7 Halst. N. J. 85 ; 1 Blackf. Ind. 32; 3 Ind. 316 3 Dev. No. C. 117 ; 1 Dev. & B. No. C. 382: 11 Mass. 414 ; 2 Muni. Va. 229 ; 2 T. B. Mont. Ky. 371 ; 16 B. Monr. Ky. 472 ; 2 Ala. 499.
4. It does not lie to enable the superior court to revise a decision upon matters of 'act, 6 Wend. N. Y. 564; 4 Hoist. N. J. 209 ; 2 Dutch. N. J. 303 ; 2 Green, N. J. 74, 141; TO Pick. Mass. 358 ; 40 Me. 389 ; 18 Ill. 324; 6 Wise. 191 ; 3 id. 736 ; see 2 Ohio, 27 ; nor matters resting in the discretion of the judge of the inferior court, 9 Mete. Mass. 423 ; 1 Dutch. N. J. 173 ; unless by special statute, 6 Wend. N. Y. 564; TO Pick. Mass. 358 ; 4 Ilalst. N. 3". 209 ; or where palpable injustice has been done. I Miss. 112; 1 Wend. N. Y. 288 ; 8 id. 47 ; 2 Mass. 173, 489; 3 id. 188, 229.
It does not lie where the errors are formal merely, and not substantial, 8 Ad. & E. 413 ; 4 Mass. 567 ; 17 id. 351; 1 Mete. Mass. 122; 6 Miss. 578; 42 Me. 395 ; nor where substan tial justice has been done though the pro eeedings were informal. 24 Me. 9; 20 Pick. Mass. 71; 24 id. 181 ; 13 Tex. 18.
5. It is granted or refused in the discretion of the superior court, Colby, Pract. 351; 8 Me. 293; 24 id. 9; 2 Mass. 445 ; 17 id. 352 ; 2 N. H. 210 ; 15 Wend. N. Y. 198 ; 2 Hill, N. Y. 9, 14 ; 26 Barb. N.. Y. 437 ; 4 T. B. Monr:Ky. 420 ; I Miss. 112; 16 Vt. 446 ; 24 Ga. 379; and the application must disclose a proper case upon its face. 8 Ad. & E. 43; 17 Mass. 351 ; 2 Hawks, No. C. 102; 1 Ashm. Penn. 51, 215 ; 2 Harr. Del. 459; Wright, Ohio, 130 ; 4 Jones, No. C. 309 ; 18 Ark. 449; 17 Ill. 31 ; 4 Tex. 1 ; 2 Swan, Tenn. 176.
6. The judgment is either that the pro ceedings below be quashed or that they be affirmed, 8 Yerg. Tenn. 102, 218 ; 5 Mass. 423 ; II id. 466 ; 12 Gill & J. Md. 329; see 35 N. H. 315, either wholly or in part. 5 Mass. 420; 13 id. 433 ; 13 Pick. Mass. 195; 4 Ohio, 200; 13 Johns. N. Y. 461 ; 15 id. 195. See, also, I Overt. Tenn. 58; 2 Hayw. No. C. 38; 4 Ala. 357. The costs are discretionary with the court, 16 Vt. 426; 6 Ind. 367 ; but at common law neither Party recovers costs, 8 Johns. N. Y. 321 ; 12 Wend. N. Y. 262 ; 11 Mass. 465 ; 3 N. H. 44; 4 Ohio, 200; and the matter it regulated by statute in some states. 4 Watts, Penn. 451; 1 Spenc. N. J. 271. See MAN DAMUS; PROCEDENDO. Consult 4 Sharswood, 131ackst. Comm. 262, 265 ; Redfield, Railways; and the authorities on the practice of the seve ral states.