v. Morel, 18 Amer. Jur. 286, Fed. Cas.

268, 3 Sup. Ct. 284, 27 I. Ed. 930; State v. Amidon, 58 Vt. 524, 2 Atl. 154.

574, 4 Sup. Ct. 202. 28 L. Ed. 262;

444, 12 Sup. Ct. 935, 36 L. Ed. 768;

678, 8 Sup. Ct. 992, 82 L. Ed. 253,

v. Koch- .

53, 9 Sup. Ct. 80, 82 L. Ed. 415.—Pree rogative law. That part of the common law of gland which ig more particularly applicable to the king. Com. Dig. tit. “Ley,” A— Prerogative writs. In English law, the name is given to certain judicial writs issued by the courts only upon proper cause shown, never as a mere matter of right, the theory being that they involve a direct interference by the government with the liberty and property of the subject, and therefore are justified only as an exercise of the extraordinary power (prerogative) of the crown. In America, a theory has sometimes been advanced that these writs should issue only in cases pudlics jurie and those affecting the sovereignty of the state, or its franchises or prerogatives, or the liberties of the people. But their issuance is now erally regulated by statute, and the use of the term “prerogative,” in describing them, amounts only to a reference to their origin and history. These writs are the writs of mandamus, procedendo, prohibition, quo warranto, habeas Fa one and certiorari, Bee 3 Steph. Comm..629; erritory

v. Watkins, 28 Fed. Cas. 436.

478, 7 Sup. Ct. 13856, 30 L. Ed. 1140;

288, 8 Sup. Ot 113, 31 L. Ed. 149;