for which he demanded the inspection at the time of demand.' A mandamus lies also to the late mayor of a city corporation, to deliver the insignia of his office to the new mayor; to a former town clerk, or clerk of a company to deliver to his successor the common seal, books, papers, and records of the corporation, which belong to his custody; or to a steward who keeps the public books of a corporation, to compel him to attend with the books at the next corporate assembly. Indeed, it lies to any person who happens to have the books of a corporation in his possession, and refuses to deliver them up, as to an executor, who refuses to deliver up the books of a borough, until money expended by his testator on account of it should be repaid. The writ has also been directed to canal appraisers, compelling them to appraise damages done by a canal,' to canal commissioners, enforcing a payment by them of assessments duly made under a statute, for recompensing such damages to a railway company, bound by act of parliament to set out their deviations, and make their compulsory purchases within stated periods, to do those acts within the times limited, so that they might complete the line of railroad, which having undertaken they were obliged by the act to finish; and to a dock company commanding them to repair the

1 Rex v. Wilts. & Berks. Canal Navigation, 3 Adolph. & Ellis, 477; Rex v. Trustees of North Leach and Whitney Roads, 5 B. & Adolph. 978.

Rex v. Owen, Comb. 399; Rex v. Dublin, 1 Stra. 539; Rex v. Ipswich, 2 Ld. Ray. 1238; Crawford v. Powell, 2 Burr. 1016; Rex v. Monday, Cowp. 539.

'Crawford v. Powell, 2 Burr. 1016; Commonwealth v. Athearn, 3 Mass. R. 285.

Rex v. Wildman, 2 Stra. 879.

5 Case of the Borough of Calne in Wilts. 2 Stra. 949.

7 Ex parte Jennings, 6 Cowen (N. Y.) R. 518; and see Reg. v. North Union Railway Co. 8 Dowl. (P. C.) 329.

"Ex parte Rogers, 7 Cowen (N. Y.) R. 526.

Reg. v. Eastern Counties Railway Co. 2 Perr. & Dav. 648; and see Reg. v. Birmingham Railway Co. 2 Adolph. & Ellis (N. S.) 47; S. C. 42 Eng. C. L. R. 566; Reg. v. Manchester & Leeds Railway Co. 3 Adolph. & Ellis (N. S.) 528; S. C. 43 Eng. C. L. R. 851.

bank of a new channel by them cut which was broken down to the obstruction of navigation.' It lies too to compel a mayor to perform any part of his duty, as presiding officer, after he has been guilty of a default in the performance of it. It has also been granted to compel a canal company to enter upon their books the probate of a will of a deceased shareholder, to register a conveyance, though not to compel them to enroll a conveyance of lands to them pursuant to the provisions of an act, after the lapse of sixty-five years, without effort during that time to compel them so to do.' And where a statute made it the duty of a turnpike corporation to grant a certificate of amounts due by them for repairs, &c., attested in a certain manner, and to transmit a duplicate of the same to the State treasurer, in order that payment might be made by the State, and deducted out of the appropriations made to the corporation; a mandamus was granted, to compel them to deliver to the relator, and transmit to the treasurer, such a certificate. A dock company was empowered by act of parliament to make a floating harbor in the city of Bristol; and the directors of the company were authorized and required "to make such alterations and amendments in the sewers of said city, as might or should be necessary in consequence of the floating of said harbor;" it was held, that a mandamus lay to the directors, commanding them to "make such alterations," &c. in the words of the act; and that it was neither requisite nor proper to call upon the company to make any specific alterations, the mode of remedying the evil being left to their discretion by parliament.'

Reg. v. Bristol Dock Company, 2 Adolph. & Ellis (N. S.) 64; S. C. 42 Eng. C. L. R. 574.

* Rex v. Everet, C. T. H. 261; Rex v. Williams, 2 M. & S. 144.

3 Rex v. Worcester Canal Company, 1 Man. & Ry. 529.

5

Cooper v. Dismal Swamp Co. 2 Murphy (N. C.) R. 195.

Reg. v. Leeds Canal Co. 3 Perr. & Dav. (Q. B.) 174.

• Commonwealth v. The President, Managers, and Company of the Anderson Ferry, Waterford and N. Haven Turnpike Road, 7 S. & R. (Penn.) R. 6.

7 The King v. The Bristol Dock Company, 6 B. & C. 181.

Where the act incorporating a dock company directed, that all actions against the company, should be brought against the treasurer, or a director for the time being, but that the body, goods, lands, &c. of such treasurer or director should not by reason thereof be made liable, and cross actions between the treasurer, as such, and another were referred to an arbitrator, who awarded against the treasurer, it was held, that mandamus would lie to the treasurer and directors commanding them to pay the sums awarded.' And where a railway company was incorporated by an act, which provided, that the public should have the beneficial enjoyment of the same, it was held, that mandamus would lie, to compel them to lay down, and reinstate the railway; they having torn up the iron tram plates for several hundred yards, in order to prevent the collieries of others from coming in competition with those of several leading members of the company. In the time of Lord Holt, a mandamus was prayed to the master and wardens of a company of gunmakers, to cause them to give a proof-mark to a freeman of the company, without which it was urged, he could not sell his guns. According to the report, his lordship rejected the application, upon the ground, that the company was "no legal establishment," and informed the applicant, that his remedy was a petition to the queen for a quo warranto, to repeal the charter of the company. It seems difficult to understand what was meant by the assertion, that the company was "no legal establishment," since it was created by charter; and it is apprehended, that a mandamus would, in such a case, be granted at the present day, without the least hesita

1 Rex v. St. Catherine's Dock Co. 4 B. & Adolph. 360; 1 Nev. & M. 121.

2 The King v. The Severn and Wye Railway Company, 2 B. & A. 646; and see Whitemarsh Township v. The Philadelphia Germantown and Norristown Railroad, 8 Serg. & Watts (Penn.) R. 365: where it is held that a mandamus may be applied for in Pennsylvania by the supervisors of a township commanding a railroad company to make a road for public accommodation, required by their charter.

Anon. 2 Ld. Ray. 989.

tion.' This writ will not, however, be granted to compel a corporation to make leases of lands which, having been leased, have fallen into their hands; for this is their own private property. In general it should be observed, that a mandamus will not be granted, unless it is clear, that there has been a direct refusal to do that, which it is the object of the writ to enforce, either in terms, or by circumstances which distinctly show an intention not to do the act required. Mere complaint made whilst the act is proceeding, though a proper precaution, does not excuse a specific demand to do the particular thing required. When a writ of mandamus is fully executed, if it does not effectuate the purposes for which it is granted, the court will, it seems, award a second or auxiliary writ to complete the act begun, and administer ample justice.'

$ 4. In noticing those cases in which the writ of mandamus lies to a corporation or its officers, we have necessarily noticed many, where, it has been determined, that this remedy does not apply. Although mandamus lies to compel a visitor to hear an appeal and give some judgment, yet, as his jurisdiction is exclusive, and his power discretionary, none lies to control his sentence, or to compel the doing of anything which falls within his jurisdiction." And though he transcend

Rex v. Brecknock & Abergavenny Canal Co. 4 Nev. & M. 871; 3 Adolph. & Ellis, 217; 1 Har. & Woll. 279; Rex v. Wilts. and Berks. Canal Co. 3 Adolph. & Ellis 477; Reg. v. The Company of the Navigation of the Rivers Thames and Isis, note (b.) to Reg. v. The Select Vestrymen of St. Margaret, Leicester, 8 Adolph. & Ellis, 901; Reg. v. Eastern Counties Railway, 10 Adolph. & Ellis, 531, 545, n. b. ; Reg. v. The Bristol and Exeter Railway Co. 4 Adolph & Ellis (N. S.) 162; S. C. 45 Eng. C. L. R.

161.

4 Ibid.

6

Rex v. Water Eaton, 2 Smith, 55.

Chap. XIX. § 4; and see Anon. 2 Penn. R. 737; and Hall v. Supervisors of Oneida, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) R. 295; Griffith v. Cochran, 5 Binn.

(Penn.) R. 87, 103.

7 Chap. XIX. § 5.

his jurisdiction, as in executing a sentence of expulsion, yet mandamus does not lie to restore the party expelled, or to reverse the visitor's sentence; but the injured person is left to his action of ejectment, or of the case for damages.' It is upon the ground, that the judges of England enjoy a species of visitatorial power over the inns of court, that a mandamus will not lie to compel the benchers to admit a member, or to call one qualified to the bar.

In order to obtain a writ of mandamus, the applicant must show a specific, and complete right, which is to be enforced; and accordingly, the writ was refused to enforce the admission of one as a doctor of the civil law, and a graduate at Cambridge, to be an advocate of the Court of Arches; Lord Ellenborough observing, that the applicant had no more claim to admission than any other of his majesty's subjects. Upon the same ground, a mandamus was refused to a doctor of physic, who had been licensed by a college of physicians, to admit him upon examination, as a fellow of the college; * and in Rex v. Jotham," the court refused a mandamus to restore a minister of an endowed dissenting meeting-house, because it did not appear that he had complied with the requisites necessary to give him a prima facie title. The right to be enforced, it seems, must also be a legal right; and if it be a mere equitable right, as a trust, the party will be left to his remedy in equity. In the case of the Rugby charity, a mandamus was refused to compel the trustees to pay increased alms to claimants on the funds, although the applicants were at an

1 Ibid.

The King v. Gray's Inn, 1 Doug. 353; The King v. The Benchers of Lincoln's Inn, 4 B. & C. 855; Ante, p. 563.

3 The King v. The Archbishop of Canterbury, 8 East, 213, 219, 240; and see People v. Collins, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) R. 56. A mere inchoate right is not sufficient. People v. Trustees of Brooklyn, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) R. 381. • Rex v. College of Physicians, 7 T. R. 282.

$3 T. R. 575.

Ibid.; and The King v. The Marquis of Stafford, 3 T. R. 646, 651, 652, per Buller, J.; Reg. v. Abrahams, 4 Adolph. & Ellis (N. S.) 157; S. C. 45 Eng. C. L. R. 157.