The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Sprague and Abigail Journeay, as Administrators, etc., of David H. Journeay, Deceased, and the said Abigail Journeay Individually, Respondents, v. Thomas W. Fitzgerald, District Attorney, and Acting Surrogate of the County of Richmond, Defendant, and Mary L. Engelbrecht, Appellant

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Sprague and Abigail Journeay, as Administrators, etc., of David H. Journeay, Deceased, and the said Abigail Journeay Individually, Respondents, v. Thomas W. Fitzgerald, District Attorney, and Acting Surrogate of the County of Richmond, Defendant, and Mary L. Engelbrecht, Appellant. Writ of prohibition— to prevent the enforcement of a void decree. A writ of prohibition will issue to prevent a judicial tribunal from exercising authority over matters not within its cognizance, or from exceeding its jurisdiction in matters of which it may take cognizance, as, for instance, to prevent its contemplated enforcement of a void decree. Appeal by the defendant, Mary L. Engelbrecht, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Richmond on the 4th day of September, 1895, directing the issuance of a writ of prohibition restraining the acting surrogate of Richmond county from taking any proceedings or issuing any order removing the relators from their office as administrators of David H. Journeay, deceased. Calvin D. Van Name, for the appellant. George J. Greenfield, for the respondents. [MAJORITY — Hatch, J.:] Hatch, J.: This proceeding was begun by the issuance of an alternative writ of prohibition which, upon the hearing at Special Term, was made absolute. The writ operated to restrain the acting surrogate from enforcing the decree providing for the removal of the administrators upon an expande application and the appointment of a particular person in their stead. We have already considered the force and effect of this decree and reached the conclusion that in this respect the same was void. (Matter of Sprague et al., not reported.) It is well settled that a writ of prohibition will issue to prevent a judicial tribunal from exercising power over matters not within its cognizance or in exceeding its jurisdiction in matters of which it may take cognizance. (People ex rel. The Mayor v. Nichols, 79 N. Y. 582; Quimbo Appo v. The People, 20 id. 531; Thomson v. Tracy, 60 id. 31.) As the contemplated action was the enforcement of a void decree, it was proper that the writ should issue in restraint of it. The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.