The courts will not interfere by mandamus with executive officers of the government in the exercise of their ordinary official duties, even where those duties require an interpretation of the law. The writ of mandamus, in other words, is not to be used as a writ of error in place of an appeal. If there has been a misinterpretation of the law by the executive officer, the court, if it has been given jurisdiction, will correct it on appeal, or the person who believes himself injured may institute appropriate civil or crim-inal proceedings.36

In Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne37 the authorities are reviewed, and a doctrine stated that is not quite as broad as that declared in Oil Co. v. Hitchcock, the court pointing out that "even upon mixed question of law and fact, or of law alone," the action of the official "will carry with it a strong presumption of its correctness, and the courts will not ordinarily review it, although they have the power, and will occasionally exercise the right of so doing."

In Marquez v. Frisbie38 the court declare that "it is a sound principle that where there is a mixed question of law and fact, and the court cannot so separate it as to see clearly where the mistake of law is, the decision of the tribunal to which the law had confided the matter is conclusive."

When a subordinate administrative officer is overruled by his superior who has an appellate administrative jurisdiction over him, his duty to obey is a ministerial one and may be compelled by mandamus.39 The federal court must, however, have been granted, by statute, the authority to issue the mandamus and,40 in fact, no such general authority has been granted by Congress to the federal courts. It has, however, been held, that the courts of the District of Columbia, having been granted general common-law powers, possess the authority.41

36 Riverside Oil Co. v. Hitchcock, 190 U. S. 316; 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 698; 47 L. ed. 1074.

37 194 U. S. 106; 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 595; 48 L. ed. 894.

38 101 U. S. 473; 25 L. ed. 800.

39 United States v. Miller, 128 U. S. 40; 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 12; 32 L. ed. 354. 40 United Stales v. Black, 128 U. S. 40; 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 12; 32 L. ed. 364;

United States v. Windom, 137 U. S. 630; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 197; 34 L. ed. 811. 41 Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 524; 9 L. ed. 1181; United States v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378; 26 L. ed. 167.