The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1880-10-02

/ a6CtlOQ &3O Oh bU5 IIhCIiCC Act IuCi
OF course the act is void 90 far ae i
confers upon this court power TO ISSUE
mandamus, except in the exercise O
its appellate jurisdiction. It is In
sisted that the third section Of the AcI
in Relation to Courts and Judicial
Officers in the Territory OF Utah, as
above quoted, resolves that question
To certain extent said third section
has the effect of limiting the jurisdic'
ton of this court, but only to that
certain extent. 1t confers upon the
District Court exclusive original iuriG'
diction in all suits or proceedings in
chancery, and in sll actions at law in
which the sum or value OF the thing
in controversy shall be $500 or up
wards.
To determine therefore whether
the Congressional enactment destroys
the Legislative enactment, we must
look into the character of the proceed.
ing wherein the rule is sought to be
applied. Clearly if the case is suit
or proceeding in chsncery, then the
exclusive original jurisdiction over it
ia in the District Court, and if the
case be an action at law, to which the
sum or value of the thing In contro-
versy shall be $500 or upwards, then
the exclusive original jurisdiction over
it is in the District Court.
But if it is not a suit or proceeding
in chancsry, or il is not suit at law
wherein the sum or value OF
the thing in controversy ia $500
or upwards, then the District
Court does not by virtue of the third
section, obtain the exclusive original
jurisdiction. The Poland Bill oonfers
upon justices Of the peace jurisdiction
IN ell cases where the debt OF
sum claimed shall be less than
$500, thus giving TO justices
courts concurrent jurisdiction with
ths District Courts in such cases
where the amount in controversy is
less than $500.
Section 445 Of the Practice Act pro-
vides that the writ of mandamus
may be issued By any court in this
territory, except a Justices, 10 any
inferior tribunal, corporation, board
or person to compel the performance
OF an act which the law specially
enjoins as a duty resulting from an
Office, trust or station" Under this
provision the rslator has applied to
this court for the writ, and the de-
murrer interpesed to bis complaint
and affidavit raises the jurisdlctional
question, and in resolving that ques-
ZION it becomes our duty to apply the
rule OF construction heretofore refer
red to. The case is not a suit OF
proceeding in chancery, and therefore
the District Court has not exclusive
original jurisdiction over it, nor Id the
amount involved in it is $500 oil
upwards, nor is it less than $500.
1t has no monied value whatever,
and has no element calling for the
ohancery powers OF the court, but it ii
Of that class of cases in which the
Practice Act confers upon this court
under the broad term any court
Jurisdiction to issue writs Of man
damus.
To my mind these ia wide differ
ence in the Office OF the two writs
VIZ: mandamus and certiorGri.
The former is termed in our statute
. tCrit of mandate and the latter Ii
termed a0rit of rerieto.
Clearly in the one case looking t
the enforcement OF some act or dutI
refused to be done by an officer II
the execution OF trust which by Law
he is required to do or perform.
In the other looking to certain pro
ceediugs had By some inferior tri
buual, wherein there is alleged eFro
or other informally in the proceed
ing which the superior court issue(
the writ, desiressto review. to ascer
tain il or not the error or intormallt!
exists.
In the case OF the writ of certiOrdrl
[ have no doubt Of the power OF TIL
court to issue 1t Tor the purposes pre-
scribed by the statute.
In the case OF the writ of man
damus, | hold it can only be issued i
the particular cases nrovided Oy th
i.,at,,ta and tbet the stAtUato Hsait0 th
uu9er to issue it to such cases wherein
lit is SOU ht to compel the perform
ance of any act which the la
spe cially enjoins as a duty resultin
fro 10 an Office, trust or station.
This case ia not OF the kind her
spoken OF. The officer against whor
this writ is directed has performe
his duty. We are not called upon t
command him to do any duty he bs
|, failed or refused to perform, but "
are asked to compel him to undo a
act which the law compelled him {
do and he has done. This We cannC
do.
The validity of the law which in
J posed the duty upon the responder
to enter the names OF the person
named in the register, cannot b
brought into question in a proceed
ing of this kind. We find that thel
} is a Law on our statute books in r
s ference to registration, compelliu
the respondent to do what We al
: uow asked to compel him to und
We cannot, for the purpose of To
{ proceeding, inquire into its vslidit
: Having satisfied ourselves that Il
duty required by the statute 10
Q performed, has been performe
nothing is left for US
Q do. The Office OF the writ is not
d require respondent to DO somethir
d not within the scope OF his offici
o authority. Beyond that he cam
l. 60, and this court could not comp
: him to exceed the functions of
d Office. In this case it was the du
10 of the respondent to enter the Ham
d upon tho register, and having so g
ID tered them he could not si,erwar
ID legally craze them, and if he cou
d not, then this court cannot, throuI
Of the agency of the writ OF msndsmr
Is compel him 10.
Section OF the Act OF February
10 1873, provides that it shall be I
le duty of the assessor OF each conf
1T in person, or by deputy. at the til
OF making the annual assessment
tb taxes In each year, beginning
lie 1879, to take up the transcript OF
be next preceding registration list, g
proceed TO the revision of the san
OF and Tor this purpose be shall V
Il. every dwelling house in each preciu
To- and make careful inquiry il any ?
be son. wtole name is on bis list,