State of l?ew York, the v?lue of the matter in dispute, ex- clu?ve of inter?t and co.z, exceeding fi?e "The defendant, the Wab? Railroad Com!?ny, a ci?en of Ohio, filed it? petition and bond in proper form for the re- moval of the ?uit into the United $tate? C?rcuit Court for the Southern District of New York, on the ground of separable controversy ?o far as it was concerned, and it was removed a?cordingly. A motion to remand was made and den?ed by the Circuit Court., which held that the controvem� was sep- arable, and that the other defendants were not indispensable or nece?ary partie? to the complete determination of that ?eparable controversy. "The i?ue on the motion to rem?nd was whether ?uch de- termination could be had without the presence of defendants other than the Wabash Railroad Company, and this was judicially determined by the Circuit Court, to which the de- cision was by law committed. "The application to this court is for the issue of the writ of mandamus directing the Circuit Court to reverse its decision, although in its nature a judicial act and within the scope of its jurisdiction and discretion. "But mandamus cannot be 'msued to compel the court be- low to decide a matter before it in a particular way, or to re- view its judicial action had in the exercise of legitinmtc jurls- diction, nor can the writ be used to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error. "Where the court refuses to take jurisdiction of a case and proceed to judgment therein, when it is its duty to do so, and there is no other remedy, mandamus will lie unless the authority to issue it has be?,n taken away by statute. In re Grossmayer, Petitioner, 177 U.S. 48; In re Hohorst, Pe?ioner, 150 U? S. 653. And so where the court assumes to exercise juri?liction on removal when on the face of the rceord ab- U.S. 107; Ez par/e W/sner, 203 U.S. 449.'
�
