Mandamus

man-da'mus (from the Latin, meaning we command), a writ issued by a superior court ordering a lower court, or an official, to perform some duty; or else a writ ordering an appearance in court to show reason, if any, why a peremptory mandamus should not be issued. It sometimes happens through neglect, stubbornness, a spirit of evasion, or a worse motive, that delay occurs in the performance of a plain public duty. In case this is made evident to the court, a writ of mandamus may be issued. An injunction is a similar writ or order forbidding an individual to perform some contemplated act. Where ordinary process of law is too slow to prevent the doing of injury, a court may, at its discretion, issue an order to restrain. Both the mandamus and the injunction are issued by the same court. Neither is permissible when ordinary procedure at law is practicable.

A court may issue a mandamus compelling a sheriff to return a ledger seized without legal authority; or a register of deeds to record a deed. An injunction may be issued, as in a time of rioting, forbidding any person to delay a train carrying United States mail, to tear out a mill dam, or to lay a railway in a public street. The mandamus is issued to an officer ordering some particular act to be done. The injunction is served on a private person or corporation commanding that some particular act be not done. The former is designed to remedy a past grievance. The latter to prevent future damage. The one commands an official to do what he ought to have done before; the other orders a person not to do something he ought not to do. In case of disobeying either, the offender may be arrested and brought before the judge for contempt of court.

There is a strong popular prejudice against both the mandamus and the injunction. As the hearing is held before the judge without the impaneling of a jury, it is felt that either of the writs mentioned is merely a legal device to take the matter out of the hands of the people. Wealthy corporations resort, not infrequently, to an injunction, because they feel that that they cannot secure justice at the hands of a popular jury. When, as sometimes happens, a judge owes his appointment to a corporate influence, the case is still worse. The popular prejudice against summary methods of court procedure has found voice in the campaign cry of "No government by injunction."