It is a proper remedy to enforce the duties of a telephone company to the public ; Cen tral Union Telephone Co. v. Bradbury, 106 Ind. 1, 5 N. E. 721; State v. Telephone Co., 17 Neb. 126, 22 N. W. 237, 52 Am. Rep. 404 ; Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Tel egraph Co., 66 Md. 399, 7 Atl. 809, 59 Am. Rep. 167 ; Commercial Union Tel. Co. v. Tele phone & Telegraph Co., 61 Vt. 241, 17 Atl. 1071, 5 L. R. A. 161, 15 Am. St. Rep. 893 ; contra, American Rapid Tel. Co. v. Telephone Co., 49 Conn. 353, 44 Am. Rep. 237 ; it may also be used to compel such company to sup ply facilities even where the petitioner has not complied with his contract to use its tele phone exclusively (the company's rehiedy for that default being an action for breach of contract); State v. Telephone Co., 61 S. C. 83, 39 S. E. 257, 55 L. R. A. 139, 85 Am. St. Rep. 870. It lies to compel the officers of a private corporation to issue a certificate of stock to the owner of it; Hair v. Burnell, 106 Fed. 280 ; against a public service cor poration to compel compliance with the rea sonable requirements of a city ; State v. Wa terworks Co., 57 Fla. 533, 48 South. 639, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 680 ; see note in 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1084 ; to compel school officers to admit a pupil without distinction as to race or col or; Kaine v. Com., 101 Pa. 490 ; to enforce a right of sepulture, in the case of a colored man, though in a lot bought by a white man, but without restriction as to color ; Mount Moriah Cemetery Ass'n v. Cora., 81 Pa. 235, 22 Am. Rep. 743. It will not lie to compel a councilman to attend ,meetings ; Wilson v. Cleveland, 157 Mich. 510, 122 N. W. 284, 133 Am. St. Rep. 352.
But in order to permit the use of this rem edy to compel corporate action, there must be a clear legal obligation on the part of the corporation to act in the manner suggested, and the coincidence of the other, conditions required to warrant the issuing of the writ, such as the absence of any other adequate legal remedy. Accordingly a mandamus has been refused to compel street car companies to operate an abandoned portion of a line where the charter did not clearly require its operation ; San Antonio Street Ry. Co. v. State, 90 Tex. 520, 39 S. W. 926, 35 L. R. A. 662, 59 Am. St. Rep. 834 ; or to keep ears running during the whole year, as that would involve the performance of a long series of continuing acts involving personal service, and extending over an indefinite time ; 28 Ont. 399. So a railroad company as pur chaser of a branch railroad at a foreclosure sale, will not be compelled to maintain and operate it at a loss where the business can be otherwise handled ; Sherwood v. R. Co., 94 Va. 291, 26 S. E. 943.
The general rule on this subject is, that, if the interior tribunal or corporate body has a discretion, and acts and exercises it, this discretion cannot be controlled by man damus ; but if the inferior body refuse to act when the law requires it to act, and the par ty has no other legal remedy, and where in justice there ought to be one, a mandamus will lie to set them in motion, and to compel action, and in proper eases, the court will settle the legal principles which should gov ern, but without controlling the discretion of the subordinate jurisdiction ; Dill. INIun.
Corp., 4th ed. § 828; Ex parte Harris, 52 Ala. 87, 23 Am. Rep. 559. The writ may be issued where an inferior court refuses to take jurisdiction when by law it ought to do so; or where, having obtained jurisdiction, it refuses to proceed in its exercise; In re Parker, 131 U. S. 221, 9 Sup. Ct. 708, 33 L. Ed. 123; In re Parsons, 150 U. S. 150, 14 Sup. Ct. 50, 37 L. Ed. 1034.
It is the common remedy for restoring persons to corporate offices of which they are unjustly deprived ; Metsker v. Neally, 41 Kan. 122, 21 Pac. 206, 13 Am. St. Rep. 269; the title to the office having been before de termined by proceeding by quo warranto; but it will not lie to try the title to an office of which there is a de facto incumbent ; Ex parte Harris, 52 Ala. 87, 23 Am. Rep. 559; 1 Burr. 402 ; Dane v. Derby, 54 Me. 95, 89 Am. Dee. 722; Biggs v. McBride, 17 Or. 640, 21 Pac. 878, 5 L. R. A. 115; see State v. Sullivan, 83 Wis. 416, 53 N. W. 677 ; State v. Smith, 49 Neb. 755, 69 N. W. 114 ; unless quo warranto does not lie; People v. City of New York, 3 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 79; but see People v. Scrugham, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 302; Harwood v. Marshall, 9 Md. 83; People v. Kilduff, 15 Ill. 492, 60 Am. Dec. 769. And see the cases fully reviewed in Redf. Railw. § 159. It lies to restore one unlawfully de posed from a church; Hughes v. Church of East Orange, 75 N. J. L. 167, 67 Atl. 66 ; but see cases contra in 17 Yale L. J. 299.
Mandamus will lie to compel acceptance of municipal office by one who, possessing the requisite qualifications, has been duly ap pointed to the same ; People v. Williams, 145 Ill. 573, 33 N. E. 849, 24 L. R. A. 492, 36 Am. St. Rep. 514. It will issue out of the supreme court to restore to his office an attorney at law illegally disbarred by a circuit court; State v. Finley, 30 Fla. 302, 11 South. 500.
This remedy must be sought at the earli est convenient time in those cases where important interests will be affected by the delay ; 12 Q. B. 448. But it is often neces sary to delay in order to determine defi nitely the rights and injuries of the several parties concerned, as until public works are completed ; 4 Q. B. 877.
It is no sufficient answer to the appli cation that the party is also liable to in dictment for the act complained of ; 3 Q. B. 528. And where a railway company attempt ed to take up their rails, they were required by mandamus to restore them, notwithstand ing they were also liable to indictment, that bring regarded as a less efficacious remedy ; 2 B. & Ald. 646. But mandamus will always be denied when there is other adequate rem edy; 11 Ad. & E. 69; 1 Q. B. 288; Redf. Railw. § 159. See State v. Hamil, 97 Ala. 107, 11 South. 892 ; County of San Joaquin v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 602, 33 Pac. 482.