Degge v. Hitchcock

Citations

• 229 U.S. 162
• 33 S. Ct. 639
• 57 L. Ed. 1135
• 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2431
• 4 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 4698

Syllabus

<p>This is apparently the first case in which a Federal court has been asked to issue a writ of certiorari to review a ruling by an executive officer of the United States Government.</p> <p>Constant failure to apply for a particular remedy suggests that it is due to 'conceded want of power in the courts to grant it.</p> <p>The scope of the writ of certiorari as it exists at common law has not Been enlarged by any statute in the Federal jurisdiction, and cases in which it has issued under statute from state courts to state officers are not controlling in the Federal courts.</p> <p>While the original scope of the writ of certiorari has been enlarged so as to serve the office of a writ of error, it has always run from court to court or to such boards, tribunals and inferior jurisdictions whose findings and decisions had the quality of a final decision and from ■ which there was no appeal or other method of review.</p> <p>The decision of the Postmaster General that a fraud order shall issue is not the exercise of a judicial function, and if the decision is beyond his jurisdiction the party injured may obtain relief in equity; the order cannot be reviewed by certiorari.</p> <p>So long as proceedings before an executive officer are in fieri the courts will not interfere with them. Plested v. Abbey, 228 U. S. 42.</p> <p>The writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, and in deciding that it will not issue in a particular case this court does not anticipate in what cases exceptional facts may call for its use.</p>