Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/467

 0 U. 8. Option o s Cbm- was called upon to determine that question and to exercise judicial discretion in deciding it. This being so, its jurisdic- tion was complete, and if it erred in its conclusions the remedy is not by writ of mandamns, which cannot be used to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error. The applicable prln- ciples have been laid down in innumerable cases. Ez arte Brad/eF, 7 Wail. 364; Ez parte Lorinl, 94 U.S. 418; In re R, 155 U.S. 396; In re At/ant/c Cy Ra//road, 164 U.S. 633. It appeared in the case of Pollz, Petitioner, 206 U.S. 323, that Pollitz had brought suit in the Supreme Court of New York against the Wabash Railroad Company and a number of defendants. Pollitz was a citizen of the State of New York; a number of the defendants were citizens of the State of New York; the Wabash Railroad Company was a corporation organized under the laws of States other than New York. The Wabash Railroad Company filed a petition to remove the case to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The petition for removal alleged that there was, in the cause, a controversy wholly between citizens of the different States, to the determination of which contro- versy the defendants, citizens of the State. of New York, were not indispensable or necessary parties. The cau was re- moved and Pollitz made a motion to remand, which was de- nied. Pollitz applied to this court for a writ of mandamns directing the remanding of the cause to the state court. The rule was entered, and a return was made to the effect that the order denying the motion to remand had been made and entered in the exercise of the jurisdiction and judicial discre- tion conferred upon the Circuit Judge by law, and for the rcasons expressed in the opinion filed with the order. The rule was discharged and the petition dismissed, and th court said (330): "The suit was commenced in the state court by a citizen and resident of the city, county and State of New York against a corporation, a citi.en of the State of Ohio, and other fendants, many of whom were resinlents and citizens of the

�