Source: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Yonley_v._Lavender
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:24:06+00:00

Document:
One Du Bose, having lands in the county of Arkansas, in the State of that name, died in October, 1869, and a certain Halleburton was appointed the administrator of his estate. Halleburton did nothing in the way of discharging his duty. He took no account of debts and assets, did not convert the property into money, and at the end of three years, the term which a statute in Arkansas, governing the subject prescribes as that when the administrator ought to have his estate settled, things remained as he had found them. Hereupon, a certain Lavender was appointed administrator de bonis non in his place.
In this state of things, Auguste Gautier, a citizen of Louisiana, brought suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas against Lavender as administrator, obtained judgment against him, and, at a sale under an execution issued on this judgment, one Yonley, who seems to have been the attorney of record, bought certain lands belonging to the estate of Du Bose, situate in Arkansas County, in the State of the same name. These proceedings took place several years after the administration of Du Bose's estate had commenced, and while it was being carried on in Arkansas County under the administration laws of the State. Shortly after Yonley purchased the land he brought an action of ejectment in the proper State court to dispossess the administrator, which resulted adversely to him, and the Supreme Court of the State, on appeal, affirmed the judgment of the lower court. It was to revise this judgment that the present writ of error was brought.
The jurisdiction of the Federal court to render the judgment cannot be denied, and that jurisdiction being granted, its process, issued for the purpose of enforcing the judgment, was valid.
'Writs and executions issuing from the courts of the United States, in virtue of these provisions, are not controlled or controllable in their general operation and effect by any collateral regulations and restrictions which the State laws have imposed upon State courts to govern them in the actual use, suspension, or superseding of them. Such regulations and restrictions are exclusively addressed to the State tribunals, and have no efficacy in the courts of the United States, unless adopted by them.'And this doctrine is declared in numerous cases  since.
Payne v. Hook,  seems conclusive in the matter.
Mr. A. H. Garland, contra.
^1 Gould's Digest, chapter 4, §§ 101, 120.
^2 Hornor v. Hanks, 22 Arkansas, 572; Yonley v. Lavender, 27 Id. 252.
^4 Suydam v. Broadnax, 14 Peters, 75; Hyde v. Stone, 20 Howard, 175; Shelby v. Bacon, 10 Id. 70; Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 187.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.