1438 MANDAMUS. [ART. 60

ARTICLE LX.

MANDAMUS.

1. Application for. 2. Rule to show cause why it should not issue. 3. Answer. 4. Defendant not to be permitted to rely on any matter in second ap- plication which might have been pleaded to the first.

5. Pleading. 6. To stand for trial, when. 7. Trial by jury or court; Judgment. 8. Costs. 9. Ex parte hearing. 10. Dismissal of petition with costs. 11. Must be peremptory. 12. Appeal bond.

1904, art. 60, sec. 1. 1S88, art. 60, sec. 1. 1860, art. 59, sec. 1. 1806, ch. 90, sec. 9.

1858, ch. 285, sec. 1.

1. All applications for granting writs of mandamus shall be made
to the circuit courts for the several counties and the superior court of
Baltimore city, the court of common pleas or the Baltimore city court,
or to the judges of said courts, respectively, during the recess of the
court, and shall be commenced by petition verified by the affidavit of
the applicant and setting forth fully the ground of his application.

When mandamus will issue.

Mandamus is appropriate in all cases where the law has established no
specific remedy, and where in justice there ought to be one. Harwood v.
Marshall, 9 Md. 97; Legg v. Annapolis, 42 Md. 226.

Mandamus will not issue unless the petitioner shows a clear legal right in
himself, and a corresponding imperative duty on the part of the defendant.
Frederick County v. Fout. 110 Md. 174; Upshur v. Baltimore, 94 Md. 746.

A ministerial duty may be enforced by mandamus. Sudler v. Lankford.
82 Md. 148: contra, if the duty is discretionary. Devin v. Belt, 70 Md. 354.

The writ is never issued when it would be nugatory. The application for
mandamus abates upon the death of the applicant. Booze v. Humbird.
27 Md. 4.

Mandamus will not lie when there is an adequate remedy at law. Brown
v. Bragunier, 79 Md. 242.

The fact that a petitioner for mandamus has a remedy in equity, does not
defeat mandamus unless the former remedy has already been invoked. Bal-
timore University v. Colton, 98 Md. 636; Hardcastle v. Maryland & Dela-
ware R. R. Co., 32 Md. 35.

The courts will not refuse mandamus on the mere ground that the plain-
tiff has an adequate remedy in damages—art. 26, sec. 25.

Generally.

While mandamus is not a writ ex debito juntitiae but rests in the sound
discretion of the court, the latter must not be arbitrary, but must be exer-
cised under established rules of law. Brooke v. Widdicombe, 39 Md. 404;
Weber v. Zimmerman. 23 Md. 53; Hardcastle v. Maryland & Delaware R.
R. Co., 32 Md. 35.

While a few general principles relative to mandamus are stated in the notes
to section 1, no attempt is made to collect the cases dealing with that subject but
containing no reference to the statute law—see Brantly's Digest.