In Blight's Lessee et al. v. Rochester, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lessee of land had the right to bring an action against another party who had wrongfully taken possession of it. The court held that he did have such a right and that his claim should be heard in court as any other legal dispute would be. The decision established the principle that when one person has been wrongfully deprived of their property by another, they are entitled to seek redress through legal proceedings rather than relying on self-help or vigilante justice for resolution. This case also set forth important principles regarding how courts should interpret contracts between parties and what remedies may be available if those agreements are breached or violated in some way.

In Blight's Lessee et al. v. Rochester, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state legislature could pass laws that would invalidate contracts made prior to the passage of such laws. The majority opinion held that it could not, but Justice Story wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that states had broad authority over their own internal affairs and should be allowed to make whatever changes they deemed necessary for public welfare or convenience without being bound by existing contracts. He further argued that if states were prevented from making such changes then it would lead to an undue restriction on their sovereignty and impede progress towards improving society as a whole. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that while contract rights should generally be respected, there may come times when overriding public interests necessitate legislative action even if it means altering previously established contractual arrangements between parties