Certiorari is discretionary where a party submits to jurisdiction and argues merits before raising any jurisdictional objection.

A party who knows of a jurisdictional objection but elects to argue the case on merits before the inferior tribunal may later be refused certiorari. The governing principle is that certiorari is a discretionary remedy, and a litigant who submits to the tribunal's jurisdiction without first pressing the objection cannot afterwards repudiate that jurisdiction and claim the writ as of right. Where the applicant participates fully on the merits before both authorities and does not confine the challenge to jurisdiction, that conduct can disentitle him to discretionary relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of certiorari should be granted where the applicant, having a point going to jurisdiction, elected to argue the matter on merits before the inferior authorities without first challenging their jurisdiction.

Analysis: The applicant had participated in the proceedings on the merits before both authorities and had not confined himself to, or even raised, the jurisdictional objection. The governing principle drawn from the English authorities was that certiorari is a discretionary remedy, and a party who, armed with a jurisdictional point of law or fact, submits to the inferior tribunal's jurisdiction and argues the case on merits cannot afterwards repudiate that jurisdiction and seek the writ as of right.

Conclusion: The writ was refused and the petition was dismissed because the applicant's conduct disentitled him to the discretionary relief of certiorari.

---