Martha Bradstreet, the plaintiff in error, brought a case against William F. Potter, the defendant in error. The dispute was over a lease agreement between them for land located in Massachusetts. Martha claimed that she had been wrongfully evicted from her leased property by Potter and sought damages for breach of contract as well as compensation for lost profits due to his actions. The Supreme Court ruled that Martha was entitled to recover damages from Potter because he had breached their contract when he unlawfully removed her from the premises without providing any notice or opportunity to cure any alleged violations of their agreement before eviction occurred. Furthermore, they found that she was also entitled to receive compensation for lost profits resulting from his wrongful conduct since it caused her financial harm and prevented her from making use of the leased property during this time period.

In the case of Martha Bradstreet v. William F. Potter, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tenant could be evicted from their rented property without being given notice or an opportunity to pay overdue rent. The majority opinion held that tenants must receive such notice before they can be lawfully removed from their rental premises; however, Justice Catron dissented and argued that no such requirement exists in common law or statute and thus should not apply in this case. He further stated that landlords have a right to evict tenants who are behind on payments without providing them with any prior warning as long as it is done peacefully and legally according to state laws governing landlord-tenant relationships. Furthermore, he argued that if landlords were required by law to give advance notification of eviction proceedings then it would create an undue burden for them since they may not always know when a tenant has become delinquent on rent payments until after the fact. Ultimately, Justice Catron concluded his dissent by stating that while he sympathizes with tenants who are wrongfully evicted due to lack of proper legal process, requiring landlords provide advanced warnings would only serve as an additional expense for both parties involved in these types of disputes which could ultimately lead more people into poverty rather than helping those already struggling financially due its costliness