Guy v. Baltimore is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1879. The case involved a dispute between a tenant and a landlord over the tenant's right to remove fixtures from a rented property. The tenant, Guy, had installed a number of fixtures in the rented property, including a furnace, a range, and a water closet. When Guy's lease expired, he attempted to remove the fixtures, but the landlord, Baltimore, refused to allow him to do so. Guy sued Baltimore in the Supreme Court of Maryland, arguing that he had a right to remove the fixtures as they were his personal property. The court ruled in favor of Baltimore, finding that the fixtures were part of the real estate and thus belonged to the landlord. Guy then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Maryland court, finding that the fixtures were part of the real estate and thus belonged to the landlord. The Court reasoned that the fixtures were intended to be permanent and that Guy had no right to remove them without the landlord's permission. The Court also noted that Guy had not paid for the fixtures and that the landlord had not agreed to allow Guy to remove them. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Guy had no right to remove the fixtures from the rented property without the landlord's permission. The Court's decision established that fixtures are part of the real estate and thus belong to the landlord.

Justice Field, in his dissenting opinion for Guy v. Baltimore, argued that the majority had misinterpreted the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and its application to this case. He believed that it was not within Congress' power to pass a law which would allow individuals who were wrongfully deprived of their property by state action to sue for damages in federal court. He further argued that if such a right did exist, then it should be limited only to cases where there has been an intentional violation of constitutional rights or other serious misconduct on behalf of the state government. In addition, he noted that allowing individuals to bring suit against states could lead to potential abuse as well as create financial burdens on those states due to large damage awards being granted by juries without any real oversight from Congress or judicial review from higher courts. Ultimately Justice Field concluded that while he sympathized with Mr. Guy's plight and understood why he wanted compensation for his losses, allowing him recourse through federal courts was beyond what is allowed under current laws and interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment at this time