It does not lie where the errors are formal merely, and not substantial; 8 Ad. & E. 413 ; pa trick v. McKernon, 5 How. (Miss.) 578 ; Furbush v. Cunningham, 56 Me. 184 ; Her mann v. Butler, 59 Ill. 225 ; nor where sub stantial, justice has beep done though the prott*Aings were Informal ; Criswell v. Richter, 13 Tex. 18; Knapp v. Heller, 32 Wis. 467; City of Charlestown v. Mid dlesex County Com'rs, 109 Mass. 270 ; Hy slop v. Finch, 99 HI. 171 ; State v. Kemen, 61, 494, 21 N. W. 530 ; nor where the proceedings are not void on their face and show no arbitrary action on the part of the trial judge; Williams v. District Court, 45 La. Ann. 1295, 14 South. 57.
Under the statute authorizing all writs not specifically provided for the federal courts have power to issue writs of certio rari in proper cases ; American Construction Co. v. R. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 13 Sup. Ct. 158, 37 L. Ed. 486; In re Tampa Suburban R. Co., 168 U. S. 583, 18 Sup. Ct. 177, 42 L. Ed. 589.
Certiorari will not lie as a substitute for an appeal from an interlocutory order of a superior court ; Guilford County v. Georgia Co., 109 N. C. 310, 13 S. E. 861; nor to re view an appealable order ; In re McConnell, 74 Cal. 217, 15 Atl. 746. The evidence can not be reviewed upon certiorari; Com. v.
Gillespie, 146 Pa. 546, 23 Atl. 393; nor rul ings on the admission of evidence ; Lord v. Wirt, 96 Mich. 415, 56 N. W. 7.
The court may deal only with questions of law and cannot say what the court should have done if the facts had been different ; Beach v. Mullin, 34 N. J. L. 343; Inhabitants of Plymouth v. Plymouth County Com'rs, 16 Gray (Mass.) 341; nor can it determine ques tions of fact depending on evidence arising outside of the record ; Hayford v. City of Bangor, 102 Me. 340, 66 Atl. 731, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 940 ; nor are such facts to be consid ered in determining the propriety of the writ; U. S. Standard Voting Machine Co. v. Hobson, 132 Ia. 38, 109 N. W. 458, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 512, 119 Am. St. Rep. 539, 10 Ann. Cas. 972. The evidence forms no part of the record, and in the absence of anything in the record to establish the contrary, it will be presumed that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding ; De Rochebrune v. South eimer, 12 Minn. 78 (Gil. 42); People v. Daw ell, 25 Mich. 251, 12 Am. Rep. 260 ; whatever the evidence tended to show is treated as proved ; id.
Certiorari may issue in criminal cases in aid of habeas corpus to review proceedings before a commissioner on commitments ; In re Martin, 5 Blatchf. 303, Fed. Cas. No. 9,151 (but not to review his decision on the facts; In re Stupp, 12 Blatchf. 501, Fed. Cas. No. 13 563) 9 • or to the circuit court to ascertain riLits proceedings whether that court has exceeded Its authority ; Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 163, 21 L. Ed. 872 (citing the prior cases); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S.
343 ; 25 L. Ed. 676; State v. Johnson, 103 Wis. 625, 79 N. W. 1081. 51 L. R. A. 33.
A court of exclusively appellate jurisdic tion cannot issue a certiorari to pass over an intermediate appellate court ; Carr v. Twee dy, Hempst. 287, Fed. 'Oils. No. 2,440a. The common law writ does not lie with respect to proceedings subsequent to appeal or writ of error ; U. S. v. Young, 94 U. S. 258, 24 L. Ed. 153.
It is granted or refused in the discretion of the superior court ; Lees v. Childs, 17 Mass. 352; Huse v. Grimes, 2 N. H. 210 ; People v. McCarthy, 102 N. Y. 642, 8 N. E. 85; State v. Blauvett, 34 N. J. L. 261; Free man v. Oldham's Lessee, 4 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 420; Flourney v. Payne, 28 Ark. 87 ; West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 16 Vt. 446; Liv ingston v. Livingston, 24 Ga. 379 ; L. R. 5 Q.
B. 466; Welch v. County Court, 29 W. Va. 63, 1 S. E. 337 ; Ex parte Hitz, 111 U. S. 766, 4 Sup. Ct. 698, 28 L. Ed. 592; Board of Supervisors v. Magoon, 109 Ill. 142; and the application must disclose a proper case upon its face ; 8 Ad. & E. 43 ; Lees v. Childs, 17 Mass. 351; Cullen v. Lowery, 2 Harr. (Del.) 459 ; Willis v. Dun, Wright (Ohio) 130 ; Hartsfield v. Jones, 49 N. C. 309 ; Redmond v. Anderson, 18 Ark. 449 ; Russell v. Picker ing, 17 Ill. 31; Mays v. Lewis, 4 Tex. 1; McMurray v. Milan, 2 Swan (Tenn.) 176.
As stated supra, the doctrine that certio rari will not lie where there is an appeal is characterized as "the rule" to that effect. That this is too broad a generalization will readily appear from an examination of the numerous cases, which are collected in a very full note on "Exceptions to the Rule" in 50 L. R. A. 787. The note is appended to two cases in the same court, each decided by a divided court, which will illustrate the diffi culty of the question. In one it was stated as the general rule that certiorari will not lie to correct mere errors of a tribunal hav ing jurisdiction, in the rightful exercise of that jurisdiction, where there is an appeal by means of which those errors may be cor rected ; State v. Shelton, 154 Mo. 670, 55 S. W. 1008, 50 L. R. A. 798. In the other case it was said that that statement of the law was too broad, and that, to bar the writ, the remedy by appeal must be adequate to meet the necessities of the case and must be equal ly beneficial, speedy and sufficient; State v. Guinotte, 156 Mo. 513, 57 S. W. 281, 50 L. R. A. 187. It is doubtful if a general rule can be formulated to apply to all cases, and, with reference to any given state of the facts, the authorities must be critically examined. It may however be said that it should not issue where there is another adequate remedy; People v. Board of Health, 140 N. Y. 1, 35 N. E. 320, 23 L. R. A. 481, 37 Am. St. Rep.