Robertson v. Cease is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1878. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Arkansas. The plaintiff, Robertson, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Cease, in 1871. Cease, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received full payment for the land. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Robertson, ruling that the sale was valid and that he was the rightful owner of the land. The Court reasoned that, under Arkansas law, a sale of land was valid even if full payment had not been made, as long as the buyer had made a good faith effort to pay the full amount. The Court also noted that Robertson had made several payments to Cease over the course of several years, and that Cease had accepted these payments without objection. The Court's decision in Robertson v. Cease established an important precedent in the area of real estate law. It established that, in certain circumstances, a sale of land could be valid even if full payment had not been made. This precedent has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving real estate disputes.

In Robertson v. Cease, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a judgment of foreclosure and sale of mortgaged property in Arkansas could be enforced against a non-resident defendant who had not been served process within the state. The majority opinion held that such enforcement would violate due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as service outside of Arkansas was necessary for jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it did not matter where service occurred since all states are bound by each other's laws through their mutual recognition of full faith and credit clauses found in Article IV Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution; therefore, any valid judgment rendered by one state should be enforceable in another without regard to where service took place or if it even happened at all. He further argued that allowing judgments from one state to be enforced elsewhere is essential for protecting creditors' rights across jurisdictions and preventing debtors from escaping liability simply because they reside outside their original creditor's home state boundaries