
    Fernández v. The District Court.
    Application for a Writ of Certiorari.'
    No. 1.
    Decided April 29, 1904.
    Certioeari. — The writ of certiorari will issue only to correct errors of procedure, and not errors of substantive law.'
    Id. — Requirements op Application. — An application for a writ of certiorari must be made under oath, in the same manner and form as petitions for the writ of habeas corpus.
    
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    In the application filed in this, case the plaintiff sets out the facts constituting the ground thereof, in the following terms:
    
      “That I am compelled to apply for a writ of certiorari, that may put an end to the illegal process being followed under the summary proceedings of the Mortgage Law, in the District Court of Mayagiiez, to the prejudice of my clients.
    “The facts involved in aforesaid proceedings, and the reasons upon which I base my petition, succinctly stated, are as follows:
    “Mr..Herbert E. Smith instituted, on the 15th of January of the present year, against José Antonio Fernández, as legal representative of his minor children, a summary executory proceeding for the recovery of a mortgage debt, already elapsed, as shown by the very documents filed, upon which the execution is claimed to be based.
    “The court admitted the application as formulated, and the execution is being proceeded with, notwithstanding the statements and allegations made by my client upon his being summoned to pay.
    “Such proceedings are illegal because contrary to the provisions both of the present and of the old Mortgage Law, as also to the common civil legislation now and formerly in force.”
    
      Mr. Alvares Nava, for plaintiff.
   Opinion of the Court.

The writ of certiorari is denied because wbat is requested is not authorized by the law of certiorari, according to which the application is admitted when the proceedings' fail to conform to the law, but not when it is based upon an error of law, such as the one being committed by the District Court of Mayagiiez, according to the allegations of the applicant, although described by counsel as an error of procedure. Moreover, there is another reason for denying the motion, namely, that it was not made under oath, in the same manner and form as petitions for habeas corpus.

Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernández, Figue-xas, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.  