Blease v. Garlington was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a tenant could be evicted from a property without a court order. The case involved a dispute between a tenant, Blease, and his landlord, Garlington. Blease had been renting a property from Garlington for several years and had failed to pay his rent. Garlington then attempted to evict Blease without a court order. Blease argued that he could not be evicted without a court order and that Garlington had violated his rights. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Blease, holding that a tenant cannot be evicted without a court order. The Court reasoned that a tenant has a right to due process and that a court order is necessary to ensure that the tenant's rights are protected. The Court also noted that a court order is necessary to ensure that the eviction is done in a lawful manner. This ruling established the precedent that a tenant cannot be evicted without a court order.

In Blease v. Garlington, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tenant in possession of land had the right to sue for damages due to an alleged breach of contract by their landlord. The majority opinion held that tenants could not bring suit against their landlords because they were not parties to the original contract and therefore lacked standing. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that tenants should be allowed to sue for damages as long as they can prove that they have suffered some kind of injury or loss due to the breach of contract by their landlord. He argued that allowing tenants such rights would provide them with greater protection and security when dealing with landlords who may otherwise take advantage of them without consequence. Furthermore, he noted that it is unfair for a tenant’s rights under a lease agreement between two other parties (the landlord and another party)to be completely disregarded simply because they are not named on said agreement.