Writs of mandamus have been issued from very early times to the ecclesiastical courts to compel them to absolve an excommunicat ed person who wished to conform to the or ders of the church ; 1 Palmer 50 ; to com pel the Dean of Arches to hear an appeal; 7 E. & B. 315 ; but a mandamus is refused where the judge has absolute discretion, and it is said that a mandamus has never been granted to deprive one of office ; Shortt, Mand. & Pro. 289 ; in such cases the remedy is by quo waffranto.
This remedy will be applied to compel a corporation or public officer ; Baker v. John sou, 41 Me. 15 ; Hamilton v. State, 3 Ind. 452 ; to pay money awarded against them in pursuance of a statute duty, where no other specific remedy is provided; 6 Ad. & E. 335 ; Coin. v. Common Councils, 34 Pa. 496; or where the money is in an officer's official custody, legally subject to the pay ment of such demand; People v. Reis, 76 Cal. 269, 18 Pac. 309 ; but if debt will lie, and the party is entitled to execution, man damus will not be allowed ; Redf. Railw. § 158; 13 M. SCW. 628 ; 1 Q. B. 288. But mandamus will not be granted to enforce a matter of contract or right upon which an action lies in the common-law courts, as to enforce the duty of common carriers; 7 Dowl. P. C. 566; Florida C. & P. R. Co. v. State, 31 Fla. 482, 13 South. 103, 20 L. R. A. 419, 34 Am. St. Rep. 30; or where the proper remedy is in equity ; 16 M. & W. 451. But where compensation is claimed for damages done partly under the powers of a statute and partly not, mandamus is the proper rem edy ; 2 Railw. & C. Cas. 1 ; Redf. Railw. § 158. Mandamus will not issue to compel the secretary of state to pay money in his hands to one party, which is claimed by another party, the right to which is in litigation; Bayard v. U. S., 127 U. S. 246, 8 Sup. Ct. 1223, 32 L. Ed. 116. Nor will the supreme court of the United States interfere by man damus with the executive officers of the gov ernment in the exercise of their ordinary of ficial duties ; U. S. v. Black, 128 U. S. 40, 9 Sup. Ct. 12, 32 L. Ed. 354; but it will issue where the law requires them to act, or when they refuse to perform a mere ministerial du ty; U. S. v. Raum, 135 U. S. 200, 10 Sup. Ct. 820, 34 L. Ed. 105 ; U. S. v. Blaine, 139 U. S. 306, 11 Sup. Ct. 607, 35 L. Ed. 183. It lies
to compel the performance of a statutory du ty only when it is clear and indisputable and there is no other legal remedy ; Bayard v. U. S., 127 U. S. 246, 8 Sup. Ct. 1223, 32 L. Ed. 116.
Mandamus will lie to compel the governor to perform a purely ministerial duty, espe cially where the constitution gives the court jurisdiction in mandamus as to all state of ficers ; State v. Brooks, 14 Wyo. 393, 84 Pac. 488, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 750, 7 Ann. Cas. 1108; Traynor v. Beckham, 116 Ky. 13, 74 S. W. 1105, 76 S. W. 844, 3 Ann. 388; State v. Savage, 64 Neb. 684, 90 N. W. 898, 91 N. W. 557. To the contrary, People v. Morton, 156 N. Y. 136, 50 N. E. 791, 41 L. R. A. 231, 66 Am. St. Rep. 547, where it was held that there was no power in the courts to compel the performance of a duty imposed upon the governor by virtue of his office, whether ministerial or otherwise; State v. Governor, 25 N. J. L. 331, where mandamus was re fused to compel the governor to issue a com mission to the applicant as surrogate, as re quired by the constitution ; State v. Stone. 120 Mo. 428, 25 S. W. 376, 23 L. R. A. 194, 41 Am. St. Rep. 705, where it was refused to compel the governor to pay the relator a cer tain sum for services as counsel on behalf of the state in the United States Supreme Court. See State v. Brooks, 14 Wyo. 393, 84 Pac. 488, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 750, 7 Ann. Cas. 1108.
Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel corporations to produce and allow an inspection of their books and records, at the suit of a corporator, where a controversy ex ists in which such inspection is material to his interests ; 4 Maule & S. 162; Swift v. State, 7 Houst. (Del.) 338, 6 Atl. 856, 32 Atl.
143, 40 Am. St. Rep. 127; s. c. 25 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 594.
It lies to compel the performance by a cor poration of a variety of specific acts within the scope of its duties ; Com. v. Common Councils of Pittsburgh, 34 Pa. 496 ; State v. Canal Co., 26 Ga. 665 ; People v. Board of Supervisors of La Salle County, 84 Ill. 303, 25 Am. Rep. 461; State v. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 219, 39 N. W. 153 ; Florida, C. & P. R. Co. v. State, 31 Fla. 482, 13 South. 103, 20 L. R. A. 419, 34 Am. St. Rep. 30 ; Northern Pae. R. Co. v. Washington, 142 U. S. 492, 12 Sup. Ct. 283, 35 L. Ed. 1092.