Ex Parte Martha Bradstreet was a case heard by the US Supreme Court in 1834. The dispute involved Martha Bradstreet, who sought to reclaim possession of her property from Henry Huntington, who had been occupying it without permission. The court found that while Huntington did not have any legal right to occupy the land, he had acted in good faith and with reasonable belief that his occupancy was lawful. As such, they ruled that he should be allowed to remain on the premises until a fair compensation could be determined for his improvements made during his tenancy. Ultimately, this decision established an important precedent regarding tenant rights and protections under common law principles of equity and fairness.

In the case of Ex Parte Martha Bradstreet, Demandant v. Henry Huntington, Tenant, the dissenting opinion was that a tenant should not be able to take possession of land without first paying rent or providing security for it. The majority opinion held that a tenant could take possession of land without having to pay rent or provide security if they had been in actual and peaceable possession for more than one year prior to being served with an ejectment notice. The dissent argued that this would lead to tenants taking advantage of landlords by occupying their property without any obligation on their part and thus allowing them free use of another's property at no cost. Furthermore, the dissent argued that such a decision would undermine landlord-tenant relationships as well as existing laws which require tenants to pay rent before taking occupancy.