ELLEN G. COOPER, Executrix of the Will of the Late JAMES F. COOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. AUGUSTUS W. COOPER, Heir of the Late JAMES F. COOPER, and J. D. RICHARDS, Resident Circuit Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, RespondentsAppellees.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION. Argued October 29, 30, 1952. Decided December 12, 1952. 1. Prohibition will not be granted where the matter is within the jurisdiction of the lower court and the court has not exceeded its jurisdiction. 2. Prohibition will not be granted where there is an adequate remedy by appeal, writ of error, or certiorari. 3. Prohibition will not be granted where the application is not supported by the requisite documents and proof. D. Bartholomew Cooper for petitioner. S. David Coleman and William N. Ross for respondent. MR. Court. JUSTICE BARCLAY delivered the opinion of the In October, 1948, the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, ordered the trustees of the estate of the late James F. Cooper to pay to Augustus W. Cooper, a son of the said decedent, the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars per month for the support and maintenance of the said son. This order was not complied with. At the June, 1949, term of the said court, the said Augustus W. Cooper applied for payment of the amount due. A decree was issued ordering the payment of eight hundred and twenty-five dollars, of which four hundred and fifty dollars was to cover amounts unpaid for November and December of 1948, and for January of 1949, as ordered in a prior decree. The remaining three hun- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 263 dred and seventy-five dollars was reimbursement of passage money home from the United States. Respondent was paid the three hundred and seventyfive dollars on August 7, 1951, but was told that there were no available funds in the estate to pay the four hundred and fifty dollars due since 1948 and the early part of 1949� Nevertheless, as was brought out at the hearing of the case, other heirs of the said James F. Cooper were regularly receiving payments from the estate. Respondent Cooper, after several attempts to obtain the four hundred and fifty dollars, each time being put off with the excuse that there were no funds available with which to meet this claim, retained counsel to enforce payment. Petitioner, fearing that a writ of execution would be issued against the estate, rushed to the chambers of Mr. Justice Reeves with an application for a writ of prohibition. When Mr. Justice Reeves refused to entertain the application, on the ground that it was not supported by the necessary documents, petitioner applied to this Court en banc. On perusal of the application for a writ of prohibition we see no reason to delay payment to respondent of the four hundred and fifty dollars, considering the many assets of the estate and the fact that every other claim is being met. Nor do we see how prohibition will lie under the circumstances set out in the application, since it does not show that the original cause, or some collateral matter arising therein, is beyond the jurisdiction of the court be ; nor does it show that the court below, having jurisdiction, exceeded it; nor does it show that no adequate remedy by appeal, writ of error, or writ of certiorari exists. There being no apparent ground for the granting of the writ of prohibition, we are denying same, with costs against petitioner, and it is hereby so ordered. Petition denied.