In Blunt's Lessee v. Smith and Others, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a tenant who had been evicted from their land by an ejectment suit could recover damages for improvements made to the property during their tenancy. The court held that while tenants may not be able to recover damages in some cases, they are entitled to compensation when they have improved the land through labor or money at their own expense. Furthermore, if a landlord has promised such compensation prior to eviction then it must be paid regardless of any other circumstances surrounding the case. This decision established important legal precedent regarding tenant rights and protections under U.S law which still stands today

In Blunt's Lessee v. Smith and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lessee of land had the right to bring an ejectment action against those who were in possession of that same land. The majority opinion held that the lessee did not have such a right because he could not prove his title by deed or other evidence; however, Justice Johnson dissented from this ruling. He argued that it would be unjust for someone who has been in actual possession of property for many years to be deprived of their rights without any proof whatsoever being presented as to why they should no longer possess said property. Furthermore, he noted that if there is no legal remedy available then individuals will resort to self-help measures which can lead to violence and chaos within society. Therefore, Justice Johnson concluded that even though the lessee may not have been able to prove his title with documentary evidence, he still had a valid claim under common law principles and should therefore be allowed access into court so as justice can prevail