The writ lies in most of the states to re move from the lower courts proceedings which are created and regulated by statute merely, for the purpose of revision; Corn. v. West Boston Bridge, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 195; Bath Bridge & Turnpike Co. v. Magoun, 8 Green'. (Me.) 293 ; Bob v. State, 2 .Yerg. (Tenn.) 173; Williamson v. Canaan, 1 G. & J. (Md.) 196; Adams v. Newfane, 8 Vt. 271; People v. Lawrence, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 589; John v. State, 1 Ala. 95; People v. Supervis ors, 8 Cal. 58; In re Robinson's Estate, 6 Mich, 137; Board of Com'rs of Hillsboro v.
Smith, 110 N. C. 417, 14 S. E. 972; Miller v. Trustees, 88 Ill. 27; and to complete the pro ceedings when the lower court refuses to do So, upon erroneous grounds; Anonymous, 2 N. C. 302 ; Auditor v. Woodruff, 2 Ark. 73, 33 Am. Dec. 368; and to correct errors in law; McAllilley v. Horton, 75 Ala. 491; Rawson v. McElvaine, 49 Mich. ,194, 13 N. W. 513; Lap an v. Cumberland County Com'rs, 65 Me. 160; Conover v. Davis, 48 N. J. L. 112, 2 Atl. 667. In England; 13 E. L. & Eq. 129; 9 L. R. Q. B. 350; and in some states; State v. Stone, 3 H. & McH. (Md.) 115; State v. Hunt, 1 N. J. L. 287; People v. Vermilyea, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 141; Cora. v. McGinnis, 2 Whart. (Pa.) 117; State v. Washington, 6 N. C. 100 ; John v. State, 1 Ala. 95; Kenney v. State, 5 R. I. 385; the writ may also be issued to remove criminal causes to a su perior court; Har. Certiorari 8. But see 'Milli v. State, 10 Ohio 345. It also lies where a probate court proceeds without jurisdiction in admitting a claim against an estate; Durham v. Field, 30 Ill. App. 121; or where the court has jurisdiction but makes an order exceeding its power ; State v. County Court, 45 Mo. App. 387. It is also given by statute to review the acts and powers of official boards and officers ; Haven v. County Com'rs, 155 Mass. 467, 29 N. E. 1083; State v. City of Ashland, 71 Wis. 502, 37 N. W. 809.
The writ 'has° been used to review the proceedings of courts-martial; Rathbun v. Sawyer, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 451; of canal ap praisers charged with acting without no tice; Fonda v. Canal Appraisers, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 288; of commissioners of appeal in cases of taxation; State v. Falkinburge, 15 N. J. L. 320; of commissioners of highways; Lawton v. Com'rs of Highways, 2 Cal. (N. Y.) 179; or where a void order was made by them; Fitch v. Com'rs of Highways, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 132 ; a municipal assessment
for a local improvement departing ly from the statutory method; People v. Rochester, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 656; common council of a city in laying out a new street ; State v. City of Fond du Lac, 42 Wis. 287. It has also been issued upon the refusal to grant a writ of habeas corpus on the ground of want of jurisdiction; People v. Mayer, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 362; and upon the discharge of a complaint under the act abolishing imprisonment for debt on the ground of want of proof; Learned v. Duval, 3 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 141. It may issue at the suit of a taxpayer and voter to test the legality of an act uniting highway districts by the trustees of the township; Dunham v. Fox, '100 Ia. 131, 69 N. W. 436.
The supreme court may issue writs of cer tiorari in all proper cases, and will do so when the circumstances imperatively de mand that form of interposition, to correct excesses of jurisdiction, and in furtherance of justice. In re Chetwood, 165 U. B. 443, 17 Sup. Ct. 385, 41 L. Ed. 782.
To warrant a certiorari the act must be plainly judicial and not executive or leg islative; People v. N. Y., 2 Hill (N. Y.) 14; accordingly it was refused in case of a cor porate resolution appropriating land for a public square ; id; and of an order of a board of health adjudging a question of nui sance ; 15 Wend. 255 ; 21 Barb. 656.
It is used also as an auxiliary process to obtain a full return to other process, as when, for the record of an inferior court is brought before a superior court by appeal, writ of error, or other lawful mode, and there is a manifest defect or sugges tion of diminution, to obtain a perfect tran script and all papers; Stewart v. Idgle, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 526, 6 L. Ed. 151; Colden v, Knickerbacker, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 38; Stewart v. Court of County Com'rs, 82 Ala. 209, 2 South. 270; Smick v. Opdycke, 12 N. J. L. 85 ; Colerick v. Hooper, 3 Ind. 316, 56 Am. Dec. 505 ; State v. Reid, 18 N. C. 382, 28 Am. Dec. 572; Thatcher v. Miller, 11 Mass. 414; Scott v. Hall, 2 Munf. (Va.) 229; Frank lin Academy v. Hall, 16 B. Monr. (Ky.) 472; Carter v. Douglass, 2 Ala. 499; Clements v. Hahn, 1 Col. 490. It does not issue as a matter of right on mere suggestion of de fects in the record, but the application must be supported by proof; State v. Orrick, 106 Mo. 111, 17 S. W. 176,-329.