In the case of Taggart et al. v. Weinacker's, Inc., 1969, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and obligations under a lease agreement. The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Taggart had leased commercial premises to Weinacker's Inc., for their department store business in Mobile, Alabama but later sold it to another party who subsequently defaulted on mortgage payments leading to foreclosure by the bank which then sold it at auction where Weinacker’s bought it back. The issue was whether or not this sequence of events absolved Weinacker’s from its obligation under the original lease agreement with the Taggarts; specifically if they were still required to pay rent as per that contract even though they now owned the building outright after buying it at auction. The court ruled in favor of Weinackers stating that once ownership changed hands due to foreclosure and subsequent purchase at auction by them (Weinackers), their contractual obligations under previous leasing agreements ceased because those contracts were extinguished when title passed through foreclosure sale.

In the dissenting opinion for TAGGART et al. v. WEINACKER'S, INC., it was argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case back to Alabama Supreme Court was not warranted. The dissenting justices believed that there had been no violation of due process in this case as claimed by Taggart and his associates because Weinacker’s Inc. had provided sufficient notice about their claim before obtaining a default judgment against them from an Alabama court while they were out-of-state residents. They contended that under existing laws, providing notice through registered mail should be considered adequate even if defendants are non-residents or absent from state at time of proceedings; hence, they saw no need for further interpretation or changes in these rules as suggested by majority opinion.