Opinion of the Court. The petitioner subsequently made application to the Circuit Court to set aside the decretal order upon the receivers' and companies' petition, and for leave to file a demurrer, plea, and answer to that petition; and that if the demurrer or plea should be overruled, a reference be had, and evidence adduced for and against the proposed action, and for a stay in the meantime; and, in the alternative, that the decretal order be opened with leave to petitioner to file, nunc pro tunc, such demurrer, plea, or answer, and with leave to file, nunc pro tunc, exceptions to the master's report upon the ground that such proceedings had been had and decree made without regard to the rules and regulations of practice; and for general relief; which application the Circuit Court denied. Petitioner thereupon applied to this court for leave to file a petition for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Circuit Judge from further proceeding upon the petition of the receivers, and from enforcing or carrying out the decree thereunder; and for a writ of mandamus directing the Circuit Judge to cause securities, deposited under the proposed plan, to be returned to their owners, and to restore the parties to their original positions, or to vacate the decree and require the parties in interest to be brought in, and thereafter to proceed according to the rules and forms of law for such cases made and provided. Mr. Nathan Bijur for petitioner. Mr. Thomas Hart, Jr., and Mr. Samuel Dickson, opposing. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. Without discussing the various matters urged upon our at tention by counsel for the petitioner, it is sufficient to say that we are of opinion that the leave asked for cannot be granted. 1. Where it appears that the court whose action is sought to be prohibited has clearly no jurisdiction of the cause originally, or of some collateral matter arising therein, a party who has objected to the jurisdiction at the outset and has no other remedy is entitled to a writ of prohibition as a matter Opinion of the Court. of right. But where there is another legal remedy by appeal or otherwise, or where the question of the jurisdiction of the court is doubtful, or depends on facts which are not made matter of record, or where the application is made by a stranger, the granting or refusal of the writ is discretionary. Nor is the granting of the writ obligatory where the case has gone to sentence, and the want of jurisdiction does not appear upon the face of the proceedings. Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167, 173; In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 495. Tested by these rules, we are clear that a proper case is not made for awarding the writ of prohibition. 2. The writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the court below to decide a matter before it in a particular way, or to review its judicial action had in the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error, even if no appeal or writ of error is given by law. American Construction Company v. Jacksonville Railway, 148 U. S. 372, 379. The Circuit Court has proceeded to judgment in the premises, and we cannot revise and reverse its decision by resort to this writ in the manner proposed, nor can we command it to adjudicate upon the rights of parties not before it, by directing it to cause securities which may have been deposited to be returned to their owners, and to restore the parties to their original positions. Still less can we direct the hearing of further argument, because counsel may consider that the opportunity for the expression of his views and the presentation of objections has not been as ample as in his opinion should have been afforded. The mere fact that, in the administration of the assets of an insolvent corporation in the custody of receivers, summary proceedings are resorted to, does not in itself affect the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court as having proceeded in excess of its powers, and, where notice has been given and hearing had, the result cannot properly be interfered with by mandamus. Ex parte Parsons, 150 U. S. 150. We perceive no ground for the extraordinary interposition of this court by the issue of either of the writs applied for. Leave denied. Statement of the Case. DICK v. FORAKER. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. No. 89. Submitted November 15, 1894. - Decided December 17, 1894. The Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas has jurisdiction of a suit in equity, brought by a citizen of Ohio against a citizen of Illinois, to remove a cloud from the title to real estate situated in that district. Without the statutory notice required by the Arkansas statute of March 12, 1881, No. 39, in proceedings for the fixing of tax liens for unpaid taxes upon lands in the State, and the sale of the lands for the non-payment thereof, the court can take no jurisdiction, and all proceedings therein are void; and the fact that the State appeared in such a suit where that notice had not been given, did not give the court jurisdiction, or render the sale valid. THE appellee, a citizen of the State of Ohio, brought his complaint in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas against the appellant, a citizen of the State of Illinois. The bill sought to remove a cloud from a title held by complainant, and charged, in substance, that under an act of the legislature of Arkansas, approved March 12, 1881, and an act amendatory thereof, approved March 22, 1881, a decree was rendered in the Ashley County circuit court, directing the sale of certain lands, for the purpose of realizing taxes due upon them. That under this decree a sale was made on September 15, 1884, by a commissioner of the court; that at said sale the complainant became a purchaser of the property, a description of which was given in the bill. That the proceedings, as well as the sale, were in accordance with the statute. That the lands thus purchased were not redeemed as prescribed by law, and accordingly the court ordered the commissioner to execute a deed therefor, which the commissioner did on May 15, 1887, and the deed was recorded in the proper office. That after this purchase the defendant (appellant here) purchased through the commis Statement of the Case. sioner of lands of the State of Arkansas the said lands from the State, as forfeited for the non-payment of taxes; that the commissioner wrongfully and without authority of law, and in disregard of the rights of complainant, executed deeds for the lands to the defendant, which deeds were recorded, and, taken all together, purport to convey all of the land purchased by the complainant under the previous sale to him; that the deeds thus executed to the defendant, while they convey no title, constitute a cloud upon the complainant's title, and their appearance upon the record impairs the value of his property. The bill, moreover, averred that the land was vacant and in the actual possession of neither complainant nor defendant. The prayer of the bill was that the deeds made to the defendant be cancelled, and that the complainant's title to said land be quieted as against the defendant and all claimants under him. The defendant demurred to the jurisdiction of the court, and upon the overruling of his demurrer answered, averring the validity of the sale made him by the commissioner of lands, and claiming that the sales to the complainant under the proceedings in the Ashley County court were absolutely void, because there was no law authorizing them, because the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and because of fatal irregularities in the proceedings themselves. The court below decreed in favor of the complainant. From this decree the cause was brought here on appeal. The defendant's title is derived from a sale made by the commissioner of lands of the State of Arkansas, treating the lands as forfeited to the State, this sale having been made subsequent to the proceedings upon which the complainant relied as his muniment of title. The statutory provisions authorizing the proceedings upon which complainant's title rests are found in the Laws of Arkansas of 1881, page 89, Act of March 12, 1881, No. 39, and read as follows: "SEC. 1. That hereafter any citizen of this State, who shall give security for cost, may file a complaint in equity in the name of the State in the court having equity jurisdiction in the county in which the lands lie, setting forth that taxes are Statement of the Case. due on lands to be therein described, or that for any reason lands lying in the county have not been assessed for any one or more years, and praying that a lien may be fixed on such lands, by a decree of the court, for such unpaid taxes, and that the lands may be sold for the non-payment thereof. The county court of any county may direct such complaint to be filed in the name of the county; and when it shall be filed in pursuance of such direction, it shall be prosecuted by the attorney for the county, or by some attorney to be retained for that purpose. "SEC. 2. On filing of such complaint, the clerk of the court shall enter on the record an order, which may be in the following form: "State of Arkansas on relation of plaintiff, v. Cer tain lands on which taxes are alleged to be due, defendant. "Now, on this day came said plaintiff, and files here in court his complaint, in which he sets forth that there are certain taxes due on the following lands: [Here insert description of the lands.] "Now, therefore, all persons having any right or interest in said lands, or any of them, are required to appear in this court within forty days from this date, then and there to show cause, if any they can, why a lien shall not be declared on said lands for unpaid taxes, and why said lands shall not be sold for non-payment thereof.' "SEC. 3. The clerk of said court shall at once cause a copy of said order to be published for two insertions in some newspaper published in the county, and, if there is no newspaper published in the county, he shall cause a copy of said order to be posted at the door of the court-house of the county, or of the room in which the court is held, and such publication shall be taken to be notice to all the world of the contents of the complaint filed as aforesaid, and of the proceedings had under it.” "SEC. 5. At the end of the forty days mentioned in section 2 of this act, the clerk shall enter upon the record a decree pro confesso, covering all lands named in the complaint, regarding which no answer has been filed, which order may be in the following form: |