GARDINER, TRUSTEE OF THE PERRY REAL ESTATE TRUST,
v.
WILLIAM S. BUTLER & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A lessee's trustee sought to prove two damage claims against a corporation in receivership after the lessee's lease was terminated. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rejection of the first claim, which was based on an explicit contractual provision requiring the lessee to pay the difference between rental value and actual rent for the remainder of the lease term after reentry. The Court affirmed rejection of the second claim because, under Massachusetts common law tradition, a lessor who terminates a lease and evicts the tenant has no further claim against the lessee absent an express contract or statute providing otherwise.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This case comes here upon the report of a master asking the court to decide whether two claims are provable. The first is upon a lease made by the petitioner to William.
S. Butler & Company. Receivers were appointed for the William S. Butler & Company corporation on November 7, 1912. At that time the winding up of the company was not contemplated by the bill or decree, but the object was to preserve the good will and pay the debts.
On October 1,1913, the petitioner entered, and on December 1, 1913, presented his proof of claims. The lease contained a clause similar to that in the lease, of Wm. Filene’s Sons Company, just considered, ante, 597, providing that in case of reentry the lessee should pay to the lessor the difference between the rental value and the rent and other payments required for the residue of the term. The claim was for rent up to the time of reentry and for damages for the later period. It' was rejected by the courts below upon the same grounds as in the former case. 230 Fed. Rep. 1021; 144 C.
C. A.
663. This decision, like the other, must be reversed. The second claim is upon a lease by Russell to the same company of which Gardiner had purchased the reversion. In substance it is for damages similar to those held allowable under the former lease, but simply on the ground that the petitioner has lost the benefit of his bargain from the time of his reentry, the lease not containing any clause stipulating for such an allowance. Of course there are plausible analogies for the contention. But the law as to leases is not a matter of logic in vacuo; it is a matter of history that has not forgotten Lord Coke. Massachusetts has followed the English tradition and we believe that it is the general understanding in that State that in the absence of statute or express contract a lessor who has terminated a lease and evicted the tenant has no further claim against the lessee. Sutton v. Goodman, 194 Massachusetts, 389, 395. Central Trust Co. v. Chicago Auditorium Association, 240 U. S. 581, 590. Upon this claim the decree below is affirmed.
Decree reversed.
Mr. Justice Brandéis took no part in the decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Manhattan Props., Inc. v. Irving Tr. Co. in Bankr., 291 U.S. 320 (U.S. 1934)…rity of the lower federal courts, and has cited many of their decisions with apparent approbation. See Central Trust Co. v. Chicago Auditorium Association, 240 U.S. 581, 589-590; Wm. Filene’s Sons Co. v. Weed, 245 U.S. 597; Gardiner v. Butler & Co., 245 U.S. 603, 605; Maynard v. Elliott, 283 U.S. 273, 278. In accord with the well-nigh unanimous view of the fqderal courts reiterated for over thirty years áre statements of leading text writers. Collier, Bankruptcy, Vol. 2, p. 1422; Remington, Bankruptcy, Vol…
-
Brown v. O'Keefe, 300 U.S. 598 (U.S. 1937)…those in Miller v. Irving Trust Co., 296 U. S. 256, where the claim had its origin in the covenants of a lease. For historical causes such covenants are sui generis (Manhattan Properties v. Irving Trust Co., 291 U. S. 320; Gardiner v. Butler & Co., 245 U. S. 603), but the analogy is still imperfect if that distinction be ignored. There the only cause of action belonging to the claimant was for a deficiency that was [*606] dependent upon unpredictable events.2 Here the progress of the liquidation had already…
-
United States v. United Shoe Mach. Co. of N.J., 247 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1918)…n the term to that of a building lease which may under the hazard of circumstances turn out tó be or not to be advantageous Gf this there are two recent examples in this court. Filene’s Sons Co. v. Weed, 245 U. S. 597, and Gardiner v. Butler & Co., 245 U. S. 603. Indeed, we may. say. of all the clauses,, without a minute analysis and discussion of them, that they were simply bargains, based on patent rights and the conditions upon which those rights were granted. (2)' The “additional-machines” clause, whic…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cent. Tr. Co. of Ill. v. Chicago Auditorium Ass'n, 240 U.S. 581 (U.S. 1916)