In Handly's Lessee v. Anthony et al., the Supreme Court of the United States held that a tenant in possession of land, who was not aware that his landlord had sold it to another party, could not be evicted by the new owner without being given proper notice and an opportunity to contest their claim. The case arose when Handly leased some land from one William Lee but did not know that Lee had subsequently sold it to Anthony and others. When they attempted to evict him, he argued before the court that he should have been given prior notice so as to allow him time for legal proceedings if necessary. The Court agreed with this argument and ruled in favor of Handly on grounds of fairness and due process rights under common law principles. This ruling established important precedent regarding tenants' rights against eviction without proper notification or recourse for appeal.

In Handly's Lessee v. Anthony et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lessee of land could bring an action against another person for trespass on that land. The majority opinion held that such an action could not be brought because it would interfere with the rights of the lessor, who had exclusive possession and control over their property. However, in his dissent Justice Story argued that allowing a lessee to bring such an action would provide them with greater protection from trespassers than they currently have under existing law. He noted that if a trespasser were allowed to go unpunished due to lack of legal recourse by the lessee then this would encourage further unlawful behavior and lead to more harm being done upon innocent parties. Therefore, he concluded that allowing actions for trespass by leasees should be permitted as it is necessary in order ensure justice is served and protect those who are wrongfully harmed or deprived of their rightful possessions through no fault of their own.