016 FEDERAL REPOnTEIl �tioners were his administratora ; thàt tlief personal estate was insùfficient to pay the debts of the deceasedj that the private act of assembly, as to the manner of sale, was within the constitutional power of the legislature; and that ail the pro- visions of the law, which are directory to the administrators, have been complied with. The court having a right to decide every question which occurs in a cause, whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is binding upon every other court. The purchaser under such a sale is not bound to look further back than the order of the court, or to inquire as to its mistakes. The court is not bound to enter on record the evidence on which any fact was decided. The proceedings on which the action of the court is grounded are usually kept on separate' papers, which are oftôu mislaid or lost. A different doctrine would (especially affcer a lapse of over 30 years) rendsr titles under a judicial sale worthless, and a mere trap for the unwary. These propositions will be found discussed at length, and fuUy decided by us, in Grig- non's Lessee y, Astor. Any further argument in vindication of them is superfluous." �In TIieMoses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, 427, the court gay : "The action against the steamer by name, authorized by the statute of California, is a proceeding in the nature and with the inci- dents of a suit in admirai ty. The distinguishing and charac- teristic feature of such suit ià that the vessel or thing proceeded against is itself seized and impleaded as the defeiidant, and is judged and sentenced accordingly. It is thia dominion of the suit in admiralty over the vessel or thing itself which gives to the title made under its decrees validity against ail the world. By the common-law process, whether of mesne attachment or execution, property is reaohed only through a personal defendant, and then only tO the extent of his title. Under a sale, therefore, upon a Judgment in a common-law proceed- ing, the title acquired can never be better than that possessed by the personal defendant. It is his title, and not the prop- erty itself, which was sold." �in Harvey v. Tyler, 2 Wall. 328, 341, the court say : "In refer- ence to these (î. e., courts of general jurisdiction) the general ����
