J.Q.B

149; 8 Ont L. J. 277; 2 Ont. L. J. N. S. 277; 3 U. C. Q. B. O. 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, providing for the removal by certiorari of suits in state courts against revenue officers, the writ from the United States circuit court to a state court will stay all proceedings; 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 upon matters of fact: People v. Board of Fire Com'rs, 100 N. Y. 82, 2 N. E. 613; Appeal of Yeager, 34 Pa. 176; Beach v. Mullin, 34 N. J. L. 343; Farmington River Water Power Co. v. County Com'rs, 112 Mass. 206; Lapan v. Cumberland County Com'rs, 65 Me. 160; Low v. R. 46 Cal. 6G7; Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. Board of Equalization, 97 Cal. 318, 32 Pac. 312; Xorth & South St. K. Co. v. Spullnek. SS Ga. 283, 14 S. E. 478; Herbert v. Curtis, 55 X. J. L. 87, 25 Atl. Whitford, 54 Wis. 150, 11 X. W. 421; Shearoua v. Morgan, 11 1 Ga. B58, 36 S. E. 927; St Judge, 41 La. Ann. 179, 6 South. 18; noi matters resting in the discretion of the judge of the inferior court; Inhabitants of New Marlborough v. County Com'rs. 9 Mete. (Mass.) 123; Boston v. Morris. 25 X. J. L. 173; Brown v. Board of Sup'rs, 124 CaL 271. 57 Pac. 82; State v. Judge, 43 La. Ann. 825, 9 South. (539; People v. Board of Fire Com'rs. 82 X. Y. 358; Hall v. Oyster, 168 Pa. 390. 31 Atl. 1007; Sunberg v. Li Court of Linn County, 61 la. 597. 16 X. W. 724; Huffaker v. Boring, 8 Ala. 87; M of Saline County Subscription, 45 M< 100 Am. Dec. 337; 3 El. & Bl. 529; 8 Ont 651, 12 Can. Sup. Ct. Ill; 29 Nova Scotia 521; unless by special statute; Starr v. Trustees of Village of Rochester, 6 Wend. (X. Y.) 564; In re Hayward, 10 Pick. (Mass.i 35S; Independence v. l'ompton, 9 N. J. L. 209; or where palpable injustice has been done; Duggen v. Mc Gruder, Walk. (Miss.i 112, 12 Am. Dec. 527; Fonda v. Canal Appraisers, 1 Wend. (X. Y.) 288: Com. v. Coombs, 2 Mass. 4S9; 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. It does not lie where the errors are formal merely, and not substantial; 8 Ad. & E. 413; Patrick v. Mc Kernon, 5 How. (Miss.) 578; Furbush v. Cunningham, 56 Me. 1S4; Hermann v. Butler, 59 111. 225; nor where substantial justice has been done though the proceedings were informal; Criswell v. Richter, 13 Tex. 18; Knapp v. Hell< Wis. 467; City of Charlestown v. Middlesex County Com'rs, 109 Mass. 270; Hyslop v. Finch, 99 111. 171; State v. Kemen, 61 Wis. 494, 21 N. W. 530; nox 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 certiorari in proper cases; American Construction Co. v. R. Co., 148 U. S. 372. 13 Sup. CI 37 L. Ed. 4SG; In re Tampa Suburban R. Co., 168 U. S. 5S3, IS Sup. Ct. 177, -12 I 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 X. C. 310, 13 S. E. 861; nor to review an appealable order; In re Mc Connell, Gillespie, 146 Pa. 546, 23 Atl. 393; nor rulings 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 questions of fact depending on evidence arising outside of tbe 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 considered in determining the propriety of the writ; U. S. Standard Voting Machine Co. v. Hobson, 132 la. 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. Southerner, 12 Minn. 7S (Gil. 42); People v. Dawell, 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); or to the circuit court to ascertain from its 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 jurisdiction cannot issue a certiorari to pass over an intermediate appellate court; Carr v. Tweedy, Hempst 287, Fed. Cas. 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. Mc Carthy, 102 N. Y. 642, 8 N. E. 85; State v. Blauvett, 34 N. J. L. 261; Freeman 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; Livingston 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, 109 111. 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; ing, 17 111. 31; Mays v. Lewis^, 4 Tex. 1; Mc Murray v. Milan, 2 Swan (Tenn.) 176. As stated supra, tbe doctrine that certiorari 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