McKenzie

This action is brought to quiet title to certain real estate, and arises upon the following state of facts:

By the decree of distribution in the father’s estate it was determined that Mrs. Smith took title to this land in fee. Hence the attachment by the sheriff and sale thereunder to- plaintiff went for nothing. Plaintiff’s deed gave him no title, for defendant Smith had no title. In this collateral proceeding the decree of distribution in the father’s estate is conclusive upon all the world. This court cannot say in this proceeding that the will of Andrew Smith was improperly construed by the decree of-distribution, or that his wife was declared the owner of a greater interest in the land than that which should have been allotted to her. The later cases upon this question are to the effect that the decree of distribution entered in the estate of Andrew Smith is conclusive upon the question that his wife, Mary Ann Smith, was, at the instant of his death, the owner of his entire estate. It is said in Cunha v. Hughes, 122 Cal. 112 ; 68 Am. St. Rep. 27 : “The decree of distribution becomes the measure of the rights of all claimants to the estate, and their rights are to be…