Wright v. Blakeslee was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Wright, and the defendant, Blakeslee, for the sale of a tract of land. The contract stated that the land was to be sold for a certain sum of money, and that the payment was to be made in installments. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the consideration was the promise of payment in installments. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract and had both received something of value. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of capacity, as both parties had the legal capacity to enter into the contract. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of formality, as the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract in writing. The Court ultimately held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount due under the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wright v. Blakeslee, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a "great practical inconvenience." He argued that under existing law, an action of ejectment could be brought against any person who wrongfully held possession of land, regardless of whether they had title or not. The majority's ruling instead required plaintiffs to prove their title before bringing suit for wrongful possession. This requirement created a situation where parties with valid titles were unable to recover damages from those without them because they lacked proof of ownership at the time when suit was filed. Justice Field concluded by stating that this new rule would create confusion and uncertainty in real estate transactions and should therefore be rejected as bad public policy.