by the Arkansas Supreme Court

Summary

by the Arkansas Supreme Court Borden v. State ex rel. Robinson… (1851)

If it is a serious desecration of the right of property under judicial sales to overturn titles thus acquired, is it not a still more serious desecration of the right of property to take it from the legal owner without notice? Can the title to property be secure under a rule by which it may be seized and sold without the consent or knowledge of the owner? Can the purchaser find repose when he reflects that the same process of seizure without notice may be applied to him?
Source: Wikisource

by the Arkansas Supreme Court Borden v. State ex rel. Robinson… (1851)

And in conclusion the court in that case said, "It may be difficult in some cases to draw the line of jurisdiction so as to determine whether the proceedings of a court are void or only erroneous. And in such cases every intendment should be favorable to a purchaser at a judicial sale. But the rights of all parties must be regarded. No principle is more vital to the administration of justice than that no man shall be condemned in his person or property without notice and an opportunity to make his defence."
Source: Wikisource

by the Arkansas Supreme Court Borden v. State ex rel. Robinson… (1851)

If there be such fixed and known rules and they are well founded in public policy, that look to the stability of titles, the stated, peaceful and quiet administration of the laws and to the repose of society in general, they must be considered of paramount obligation, although in their enforcement cases of individual hardship may arise. And this upon the maxim, as old as the common law itself "that a private mischief shall be rather suffered than a public inconvenience."
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature