Graham v. Norton

delivered the opinion of the court.

We are of opinion that neither the District nor the Circuit Coui’t had jux’isdietion to issue a writ of mandamus in this case.* This court has held that the wx'it may be xised for the purpose of enfoi’cing a judgment rendered by the Circuit Coux-t, where its use by the State court for that pux’pose is sanctioned by State laws, but in such cases it is used as a process for the enforcement of judgments and not as an original pi’oceeding.

In the thirteenth section of the Judiciax’y Act this court is clothed with power to issue “ writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the pi'ocesses and usages of law to aixy courts appointed or persons holding office under the authority of the United States.”† This express authority to issue writs of nxandamxis to National courts and officex-s has always been held to exclude authority to issue these writs to State courts and officers.‡ The only exception is that just adverted to, where they have been issued as process to enforce judgments.

The fourteenth section clothes all the courts of the United States with power to issue certain specific writs, and all other writs which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions. Of course Circuit Courts may issue writs of mandamus when necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction, but they have no authority to issue it as an original writ in any case. The absence of the power in the Circuit Courts to issue writs of mandamus, except as ancillary to a jurisdiction already acquired, is so well explained in Bath County v. Amy,*that it is unnecessary to pursue the subject further.

Judgment reversed, and the case remanded with directions to

Dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.