The Kalorama, The Custer was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1870. The case involved a dispute between two landowners over the ownership of a piece of property in the Kalorama Heights area of Washington, D.C. The plaintiff, The Custer, claimed that he had purchased the property from the defendant, The Kalorama, in 1867. The Kalorama argued that the sale was invalid because it had not been properly recorded. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with The Custer, ruling that the sale was valid and that The Custer was the rightful owner of the property. The Court held that the recording of the deed was not necessary to make the sale valid, as long as the parties had agreed to the sale and the consideration had been paid. The Court also held that The Custer had a valid claim to the property, even though The Kalorama had been in possession of the property for some time prior to the sale. The decision in The Kalorama, The Custer established an important precedent in property law, as it established that a sale of property is valid even if it is not recorded. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and is still used today to determine the validity of property sales.

In The Kalorama, the Custer case of 1870, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tenant had been wrongfully evicted from their rental property. The majority opinion held that because the landlord had given notice and followed all legal procedures in evicting the tenant, they were within their rights to do so. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly he argued that as there was no written lease agreement between landlord and tenant it could not be assumed that either party knew what terms applied; secondly he argued that even if there had been an agreement in place it would have been unconscionable for a court to uphold its enforcement when one party (the tenant) clearly lacked any bargaining power or knowledge of their rights under such an arrangement. He concluded by stating his belief that justice should always prevail over technicalities when deciding cases like these.