
    O. RICHARD KOEHLER, APPELLANT, v. PASSAIC COUNTY ORPHANS’ COURT ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
    Argued June 18, 1920
    Decided October 15, 1920.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which comt the following per curiam was filed:
    “0. Richard Koehler is the guardian of two infants, both resident in Germany, and one of them. Ella O. E. Koehler, has now come of age. On the settlement by the guardian of his account, aj rule to show cause was allowed why an order should not he made requiring the guardian to deposit the securities making up each fund with the 'United States Alien Property Custodian. Two orders requiring such deposit were made by the Orphans’ Court. A writ of certiorari was allowed in each case to review the order, and by agreement the cases were argued together.
    “The first point made by the defendant in certiorari is that the only way to review such an order, finder the statute, is by appeal to the Prerogative Court, and that therefore these writs should be dismissed. We think this is correct. The Orphans-’ Court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, and the only question is whether these orders, which simply require the guardian to comply with, the federal statute, is an erroneous exercise of that jurisdiction. If it was wrongly exercised, then manifestly the remedy is by appeal to the Prerogative Court, otherwise all erroneous judgments of the Orphans’ Court would be subject to review by ceHiorari. The writ will he dismissed, with costs.”
    For the appellant, Humphreys ,<& Sumner.
    
    For the respondent, Henry 0. Whitehead.
    
   PER CuRIAM.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for. the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court.

For affimn-cmceJ — iThe Chief Justice, Swayze, MiNtuRN, BlacK, KatzeNbaoh, White, HeppeNheimeii, WilliaMfe, AcKERSON, JJ. 9.

For reversal — -None.  