CANAL ZONE cX rel., SUCCARI V. OWEN. 6

That a bond of $8,000 was required, which on June 2, -was reduced to $5,000 and additional time given to present a bill, of exceptions. That on September 2, 1910, within the time fixed, the court refused toI sign the bill of exceptions presented by the relators, assigning as a reason therefor that the stay bond had not been given.
This'it is claimed entitled the relators to the writ prayed for. The petition has attached thereto as an exhibit the bill of exceptions presented to the court.
The answer for the respondent is very. full and complete and gives a detailed account of the litigation to which reference will be made.
From the whole case it appears that the bill of exceptions is to save the exception* taken to the ruling of the court, made on May 23, overruling the motion to vacate the judgment, set aside the decree, and open the default.
If the court had lost control of the judgment prior to May 140 and was powerless to set the same aside though he might so desire, then for the purposes of this application the bill of exceptions would become and be an idle and useless encumbrance of the record and should not be granted.
Seymour vs. Andrade, Supreme Court Reports, page 19, gives the law of this court in such case. It is there said:
An action of mandamus is an original suit of a civil nature brought in the name of the State on the relation of one who can show a well-defined right thereto. The petition must be very explicit, giving all the facts and circumstances and must be made on affidavit, as it prays an extraordinary remedy.* The writ of mandamus will be granted by a superior court only when the substantial rights of the appellant are prejudiced in the lower court, and only When the appellant is unable to obtain redress in any other way.
In the case at bar there seems to be no substantial injury done the appellant, as the matter of permitting attorneys to practice is at the discretion of the court.
There is no rule of practice better established than that after the term has gone by, the court loses all control over a judgment except when certain conditions exist, none of which are existent in the case at bar. The judgment we learn from the petition was rendered in the March term of court. It was the May term of the court before any motion was made to vacate the same. It appears that $400 should have been credited on the judgment at the time it was rendered, which was afterwards done. So as to this $400 there is no substantial injury done even though it could not now be considered.

67