from court to court,-including boards, officers or tribunals having a limited statutory jurisdiction, but whose judgments would be conclusive unless set aside.

The appellant insists that under these common law principles the writ should issue here because, having to act 'upon evidence satisfactory to him" (Rev. Stat., § 3929), and notice and a hearing having been given, the Postmaster General acted in a judicial capacity in making the order, which was therefore subject to review on certiorari because he exceeded his jurisdiction and, without any proof of fraud in the use of the mails, deprived appellants of the valuable right to receive letters and money through the post-office.

It is true that the Postmaster General gave notice and a hearing to the persons specially to be affected by the order and that in making his ruling he may be said to have acted in a quasi-judicial capacity. But the statute was passed primarily for the benefit of the public at large and the order was for them and their protection. That fact gave an administrative quality to the hearing and to the order and was sufficient to prevent it from being subject to review by writ of certiorari. The Postmaster General could not exercise judicial functions, and in making the decision he was not an officer presiding over a tribunal where his ruling was final unless reversed. Not being a judgment, it was not subject to appeal, writ of error, or certiorari. Not being a judgment, in the sense of a final adjudication, the appellants were not concluded by his decision, for had there been an arbitrary exercise of statutory power or a ruling in excess of the jurisdiction. conferred, they had the right to apply for and obtain appropriate relief in a court of equity. School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 94. Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 620.

The fact that there was this remedy is itself sufficient to take the case out of the principle on which, at common

law, right to the writ was founded. For there it issued to officers and tribunals only because there was no other method of preventing injustice. Besides, if the common law writ, with all of its incidents, could be construed to apply to administrative and quasi-judicial rulings it could, with a greater show of authority, issue to remove a record before decision and so prevent a ruling in any case where it was claimed there was no jurisdiction to act. This would overturn the principle that, as long as the proceedings are in fieri the courts will not interfere with the hearing and disposition of matters before the Departments. Plested v. Abbey, 228 U. S. 42, 51. To hold that the writ could issue either before or after an administrative ruling would make the dispatch of business in the Departments wait on the decisions of the courts and not only lead to consequences of the most manifest inconvenience, but would be an invasion of the Executive by the Judicial branch of the Government.

The writ of certiorari is one of the extraordinary remedies and being such it is impossible to anticipate what exceptional facts may arise to call for its use, but the present case is not of that character, but rather an instance of an attempt to use the writ for the purpose of reviewing an administrative order. Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U. S. 497. This cannot be done.

Affirmed.

229 U.S.

Opinion of the Court.

MACKAY v. UINTA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

No. 190. Argued March 14, 17, 1913. Decided May 26, 1913.

Where the defects in service of process and in procedure in the state court are waivable, and after removal there is presented to the Circuit Court a controversy involving more than $2,000 and between citizens of different States, that court has jurisdiction and the method of getting the case before the court cannot operate to deprive it of jurisdiction.

Removal proceedings are in the nature of process to bring the parties before the Federal court.

The defendant may waive defects in removal proceedings if jurisdiction actually exists, and if he does so the court will not of its own motion inquire into the regularity of the proceedings.

THE facts, which involve the validity of the removal of this cause from the state to the Federal court and the jurisdiction of the latter thereover, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Barnard J. Stewart, with whom Mr. Charles B. Stewart, Mr. Samuel W. Stewart and Mr. Daniel Alexander were on the brief, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. John W. Lacey for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE LAMAR delivered the opinion of the court.

On December 8, 1908, the Uinta Development Company, a corporation of the State of Wyoming, brought an action in a Wyoming court against John C. Mackay, a resident and citizen of Utah, to recover $1,950 damages

for a trespass upon land of the Development Company, situated in Wyoming.

On January 8, 1909, Mackay duly filed his answer. On March 2 the plaintiff, by leave of court, filed an amended petition, which Mackay answered. On May 3 he filed an amended answer, which, in addition to denying many of the allegations of the amended petition, set up a counterclaim for $3,000 damages.

The claims of the parties were so related that either could have been interposed as a counter-claim to the other; or they could have been determined in different suitssubject to the provision that, under the Wyoming statute, a defendant who failed to set up his counter-claim and subsequently made it the subject of a separate action could not recover costs if he prevailed therein. No Federal question was presented in the plaintiff's suit or defendant's original answer, but Mackay's amended answer and counter-claim were grounded upon certain statutes of the United States. This counter-claim for $3,000 was filed after the expiration of the time in which he was required to plead to the original petition.

But, notwithstanding the delay, Mackay, the nonresident, without objection on the part of the Development Company, filed in the state court a petition to remove the case to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Wyoming. An order removing the case was granted on the theory that the parties were citizens of different States; that the construction of the Federal statutes was necessarily involved, and that the amount in dispute, as disclosed by the counter-claim, exceeded $2,000. The transcript was duly filed in the United States court. Both parties appeared. The plaintiff filed in the United States court a reply to Mackay's counterclaim, and the case, which was docketed as "Uinta Development Company v. John C. Mackay," was submitted to the court for determination without a jury.

Judgment was entered in favor of the Development Company and thereupon Mackay took the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals, assigning errors relating to rulings made in the course of the trial, but neither party raised any question as to its power to determine the cause. On these facts the Circuit Court of Appeals certified to this court various questions as to whether Mackay could remove the case to the United States court, among them the following:

4. "Assuming that the removal at the instance of Mackay was not in conformity with the removal statute, and assuming that as respects his claim against the Development Company all the jurisdictional elements were present which were essential to enable the Circuit Court to take cognizance thereof, if he had commenced an action thereon in that court, and assuming that in such an action the Development Company lawfully could have set up its claim as a counter-claim and thereby have enabled the court to take cognizance thereof, Did the parties by appearing in the Circuit Court and there litigating both claims to a final conclusion in a single cause, without any objection to the jurisdiction of the court or to the manner in which its jurisdiction was invoked, enable that court to take cognizance of the controversy and to proceed to a final judgment therein with like effect as if they had invoked the jurisdiction of that court in the first instance through an action commenced therein by Mackay upon his claim and through the interposition by the Development Company of its claim as a counter-claim in that action?"

This question must be answered in the affirmative and that fact makes it unnecessary to consider the status of the parties in the state court and who was technical plaintiff and who technical defendant, or whether Mackay, a non-resident defendant, sued in a state court for $1,950, could, by filing a counter-claim for $3,000, acquire the