The opinion
PETERS, P. J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment.
So far as the question of remedy is concerned, I believe that either mandamus or certiorari will lie to “review” the determinations of local boards exercising judicial or quasi judicial powers. If certiorari is used, the extent of the review would be to inquire into the “jurisdiction” of the local board. So far as the evidence is concerned, that would mean that the superior court’s power is limited to determining whether there is any substantial evidence to support the *263 findings of the board. If mandamus is used, the extent of the “review” is to determine, as pointed out in the main opinion, whether “the local board has acted arbitrarily and clearly in abuse of its discretion.” So far as the evidence is concerned, that means that the superior court’s power is limited to determining whether there is any substantial evidence to support the findings of the board. There is no doubt that the cases hold, as stated in the main opinion, that mandamus may be used by the aggrieved party. Whichever remedy is used, so far as the evidence is concerned, the extent of the “review” is exactly the same. The only practical difference between the two remedies is that in certiorari the court may annul the order of the board, while in mandamus the court issues a peremptory writ. Whichever remedy is used, the superior court should be limited to the record produced before the board.
It is my opinion that under the cases the aggrieved party has an election of remedies—he may proceed either by mandamus or certiorari, but, so far as the evidence is concerned, whichever remedy is used the power of the superior court is exactly the same—to determine whether there is any substantial evidence to support the order of the local board, if that board exercises judicial or quasi judicial power.
A petition for a rehearing was denied March 29, 1941.