Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/176/207.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 19:11:29+00:00

Document:
Messrs. J. D. Rouse and Wm. Grant for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Edgar H. Farrar, Benjamin F. Jonas, Ernest B. Kruttschnitt, and Henry L. Lazarus for defendant in error.
The differences between this provision and that of the act [176 U.S. 207, 210] of 1789 are not material here. Ser e v. Pitot was decided in 1810; has been cited many times; frequently, with approval, on analogous points ( Smith v. Fort Scott & A. R. Co. 99 U.S. 398 , 25 L. ed. 437; Corbin v. Black Hawk County, 105 U.S. 659 , 26 L. ed. 1136; Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Davidson, 157 U.S. 201 , 39 L. ed. 672, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 563); though criticised in Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 387, 19 L. ed. 736, has never been overruled, and is decisive of the present case.
The title to Carr's estate passed on his death to his heirs. La. Rev. Civil Code, arts. 940 et seq. These warrants were sold at a judicial sale under authority of an order of the probate court of the parish, having the administration of the estate, by the sheriff of that parish. Glass became the purchaser, and the adjudication made and recorded by the sheriff gave him title. Rev. Civil Code, arts. 2622, 2623. And, moreover, the Code provided that 'all the warranties to which private sales are subject exist against the heir in judicial sales of the property of successions.' Art. 2624; Deloach v. Elder, 14 La. Ann. 673. The title thus obtained did not devolve on Glass in the same manner as the law devolves title by its own operation on an executor, an administrator, an heir, a universal legatee, or a receiver, but was transferred by the sale and the adjudication. The purchaser at sales on judgment and execution similarly obtains title through the act of the executive officer.
Conceding that proceeding in settlement of estates in probate courts are in themselves proceedings in rem, yet the title to property ordered to be sold in such proceedings is not transferred by the mere order of sale, but by the sale taking place as prescribed. Its validity depends on the jurisdiction of the probate court; its transfer is accomplished in the designated way through the designated instrumentality.
In our opinion Glass came within the restriction of the statute, and the circuit court correctly held that jurisdiction could not be sustained.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 2624
 v.