The office of the writs of certiorari and manda mus Is often much the same. It is the practice of the U. S. supreme court, upon a suggestion of any defect in the transcript of the record sent up to that court upon a writ of error, to allow a special certiorari, requiring the court below to certify more fully; Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dail. (U. S.) 411, 1 D. Ed. 658; Barton v. Petit, 7 Cra. (U. S.) 288, 3 Ed. 347 ; Stimpson v. R. Co., 3 How. (U. S.) 553, 11 L. Ed. 722; U. S. v. Adams, 9 Wail. (U. S.) 661, 19 L. Ed. 808. Relief may also be had in the U. S. Circuit Conti of Appeals on allegation of diminu tion in the record sent up from the circuit court, as provided by rule 18 ; Blanks v. Klein, 49 Fed. 1, 1 C. C. A. 254. The same result might also be ef fected 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 In 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 appro priate 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 remedy.
The writ is generally said to issue only after final judgment of the inferior court or tribunal whose proceedings are to be re viewed ; Patterson v. United States, 2 Wheat. (U. S.) 221, 4 L. Ed. 224; People v. Railroad Com'rs, 160 N. Y. 202, 54 N. E. 697; Lynde v. Noble, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 80; Wallace v. Jameson, 179 Pa. 94, 36 Atl. 145 ; Case of Road from Bough Street, 2 S. & R. 419 ; Vaughn v. Marshall, 1 Houst. (Del.) 348; Stewart v. State, (V Ga. 202, 25 S. •E. 424; Meads v. Copper Mines, 125 Mich. 456, 84 N. W. 615; People v. Lindsay, 1 Idaho, 401; State v. Valliant, 123 Mo. 524, 27 S. W. 379, 28 S. W. 586; State v. Gill, 137 Mo. 627, 39 S. W. 81; Glennon v. Burton, 144 III. 551, 33 N. E. 23 ; Gauld v. Board of Sup'rs, 122 Cal. 18, 54 Pac. 272 ; Culver v. Travis, 108 Mich. 640, 66 N. W. 575; where the reason for the rule is thus stated: "The writ of certiorari is a writ of review. Its office is to bring up for review final deter minations and adjudications of inferior tri bunals, boards or officers exercising judicial functions, where there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. The writ is necessarily founded on a final deter mination. Were the rule otherwise a writ might issue at any step in the proceedings of the inferior tribunal, although such tribunal might, were the point presented, decide that it had no jurisdiction in the matter submit ted to it. This would be the exercise of original jurisdiction by the court issuing the writ and not a review of the determination of the inferior tribunal. The matter com
plained of would be, not that the tribunal had exceeded, hut that it was about to ex ceed, its jurisdiction." As the writ relates back to the first day of the term, it will not issue to review a case not pending at that time ; Womer v. R. Co., 37 W. Va. 287, 16 S. E. 488.
The English rule is different in civil cases, and the writ is usually issued before the final determination ; 7 D. & 769; 13 L. J. Q. B. 149 ; 8 Ont. L. J. 277; 2 Ont. L. J. N. S. 277; 3 U. C. Q. B. 0. S. 149. In one state at least it is held that the writ may issue, in the case of municipal corporations. before final decision ; State v. City Council of Camden, 47 N. J. L. 64, 54 Am. Rep.,117 Under the act of March 2, 1833, Vrovni ing for the removal by certiorari of suits in state courts against revenue officers, the writ from the United Stag cizettit court to a state court will stay All viroccedings; State v. Circuit Judge, 33 Wis. 127. And under the removal act of 1875, if the state court decides to retain jurisdiction in a removable case, a certiorari, may be resorted to to obtain a transfer of the record; U. S. R. S. 1 Supp. 84. .
It does not lie to enable the superior court to revise a decision matters of fact ; People v. Board of Af'irfa Corn a, 100 N. Y. 82, 2 N. E. 613 ; Appeal of •eager, 34 Pa. Beach v. Mullin, 34 N. 3..14. 343; Farm ington River Wabbr Power Co. v. County Com'rs, 112 Mass, 206; Lapan v. Qumber land County Com'rs,/ 65 Me. 160; Low v. 'R. Co., 18 HI. 324; Frederick v. Clark, 5 Wis. 191; Central Pac. Co.P v. Placer County, 46 Cal. 667; Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. Board of Equalization, 97 Cal. 318, 32 Pac. 312; North & South St. R. Co. v. Spullock, 88 Ga. 283, 14 S. E. 478 ; Herbert v. Curtis, 55 N. J. L. 87, 25 Atl. 386 ; State v. Whitford, 54 Wis. 150, 11 N. W. 424 ; Shearous v. Morgan, 111 Ga. 858, 36 S. E. 927 ; State v. Judge, 41 La. Ann. 179, 6 South. 18; nor matters resting in the discretion of the judge of the inferior court ; Inhabitants of New Marlborough v. County Com'rs, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 423 ; Roston v. Morris, 25 N. J. L. 173 ; Brown v. Board of Sup'rs, 124 Cal. 274, 57 Pac. 82; State v. Judge, 43 La. Ann. 825, 9 South. 639; People v. Board of Fire Com'rs, 82 N. Y. 358 ; Hall v. Oyster, 168 Pa. 399, 31 Atl. 1007 ; Sunberg v. District Court of Linn County, 61 Ia. 597, 16 N. W. 724 ; Huffaker v. Boring, 8 Ala. 87 ; Matter of Saline County Subscription, 45 Mo. 52, 100 Am. Dec. 337; 3 El. & Bl. 529; 8 Ont. 651, 12 Can. Sup. Ct. 111; 29 Nova Scotia 521; unless by special statute; Starr v. Trustees of Village of Rochester, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 564 ; In re Hayward, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 358; Independence v. Pompton, 9 N. J. L. 209 ; or where palpable injustice has been done; Duggen v. McGruder, Walk. (Miss.) 112, 12 Am. Dec. 527; Fonda v. Canal Ap praisers, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 288 ; Com. v. Coombs, 2 Mass. 489 ; State v. Smith, 101 Mo. 174, 14 S. W. 108 ; Bostick v. Palmer, 79 Ga. 680, 4 S. E. 319 ; Lapan v. County Com'rs, 65 Me. 160; Ex parte Schmidt, 24 S. C. 363.