Page:Borden v. State ex rel. Robinson.pdf/13

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
ark.]
Borden Et Al. vs. State, use &c.
531

tory merely because they had been called rules of public policy instead of laws of nature, if they were essentially the same in their nature and had been derived from the same source and by the same process of reasoning. And we apprehend that all those rules of law which are usually called rules of public policy are of this character, having more or less authority and operation as the public policy they are designed to sustain is of greater or less import to the community.

Now among these rules that have been and are so to be developed and are thus based, is that which sustains the inviolability of judicial sales: that which covers the officers of the law, judicial and ministerial, with the panoply of its protection, when within the pale of integrity and reasonable diligence: that which looks to the end of strife and the repose of society through the verity of the records of superior courts and the finality of their judgments and decrees when not disturbed by appellate power. And there are many others of like moment designed to sustain the stability of titles to property, a stable administration of justice and to promote the peace and happiness of the country in general. Now when we consider that the inevitable result of bolding notice before judicial sentence to be a natural law is a serious desecration of all these important rules, we have abundant reason to doubt the correctness of such a doctrine. Because, so far from preserving the peace and happiness of society in thus operating, its tendency is in this directly the contrary. For it cannot be denied but that, if any serious inroad be made upon these great rules of property and repose, no little encouragement will at once be given to piratical adventures under color of law.

The judicial declaration of the nullity of a judicial sentence is far different, in its consequences, from its reversal on error. The latter does not affect titles, nor make innocent men trespassers, nor rob honest purchasers either of their money or the subject matter of their purchase after having been invited to buy under the sanctity of judicial proceedings. The former does all this and much more, for it strikes a deadly blow at that confidence