People ex rel. Sayer v. Garnett

Citations

• 130 Ill. 340
• 23 N.E. 331

Syllabus

<p>1. Mandamus—when the proper remedy-—generally. The absence or want of any other adequate and specific remedy is not, of itself, sufficient to lay the foundation for interference by mandamus.</p> <p>2. Same—in matters of judicial discretion—not to serve the office of a writ of error. A writ of mandamus will not be issued by a superior to any inferior court for thq purpose of controlling the latter in the exercise of its judicial judgment or discretion.</p> <p>3. Where a judge- of an inferior court refuses to act in a matter brought before him as a court, mandamus will lie to compel him to proceed with the case. But when he does not refuse to act, but in the exercise of his judicial judgment makes a ruling, however erroneous, mandamus will not lie to control his judgment and require him to vacate the same. The writ is not designed to serve the office of a writ of error.</p> <p>4. The Appellate Court dismissed an appeal from an order of the trial court overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction, on the ground that the act allowing such appeal was unconstitutional and void. It was held, that mandamus would not lie to compel the judges of the Appellate Court to vacate the order of dismissal, however erroneous it might be, and to proceed with the case, and this although the relator might have no other remedy for the review of the judgment of the' Appellate Court.</p>