Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/332

 820 FEDEBAIi BEFOBTEB. �the said writ ot manaamus, and,tence pray thatj they may T)e discharged •withtheir costs." �To this retum the relator demurs upon the ground thai the same is not sufficient in law, and does not Bhow any fact or legal reason why the respondenta should not be adjudged in contempt. �Brown e Camphell, for relator. �B. W. Perkins, for respondents. �McCbart, C. J. 1. Assuming that the retum is trne in fact, does it excuse the board of countj commissionera from the performance of so much of the command of the writ as ordered them to oollect and pay over, as well as to levy, the taxes to pay relator's judgment? The excuse offered is, in brief, that although commanded to levy, collect, and pay over, the respondents are powerless to do more than levy, since the law devolves the duty of collecting and paying over upon another officer of the county, the treasurer, who can only act upon tax rolls to be prepared by the county clerk. The office, and the only office, of the writ of mandamus, when addressed to a public officer, is to compel him to exercise such functions as the law confers upon him. When the law enjoins upon sueh an officer the performance of a specifie act or duty, obedience to the law may, in the absence of other adequate remedy, be enforced by this writ. But the writ neithers creates nor confers power upon the officer to whom it is directed. It can do no more than to command the exer- cise of powers already existing. High on Extraordinary Eemedies, § 32; Johnson v. Lucas, 11 Humph. 306; Houston Tap. etc., R. Co. v. Randolph, 24 Tex. 317; Williams v. Smith, 6 Cal. 91; Peopley. Forquer, Breese, 68; United States v. County of Clark, 95 U. S. 769. �These principles are established, not only by the cases here ■ated, but also by many others, Indeed, they are among the elementary and fundamental principles of the law of man- damus. Applying them to this case, we are brought inevita- bly to the conclusion that so much of the mandate of the writ as commanded the respondents to perform duties which they had, under the law, no power to perform, was void. It was ��� �