Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Gardiner v. William S. Butler & Co.

Gardiner v. William S. Butler & Co., 245 U.S. 603 (1918)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1918-02-04
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gardiner v. William S. Butler & Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
65 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Bankruptcy Law — Receivership — Landlord and Tenant — Lease Damages Where a non-statutory receivership proceeding is brought to preserve the good will and pay the debts of a company occupying premises as lessee, and the lessee's lease provides that upon reentry the lessee shall pay the difference between the rental value and the rent and other payments reserved for the residue of the term, the lessor who reenters during the receivership has a proper claim for rent accrued up to the time of reentry and for damages under the lease's reentry covenant measured by the difference between the rental value at the time of reentry and the rent and other payments reserved for the residue of the term. 245 U.S. 603, 605 (citing Filene's Sons Co. v. Weed, ante, 597)
  2. Real Property Law — Effect of Reentry and Eviction 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; accordingly, a lessor may not recover damages for loss of the benefit of the bargain from the time of reentry where the lease contains no clause stipulating for such an allowance, and the rule applies equally to a claim asserted against the lessee's receivers in equity proceedings to continue the lessee's business to pay its debts. 245 U.S. 603, 605–606 (citing Sutton v. Goodman, 194 Mass. 389, 395; Central Trust Co. v. Chicago Auditorium Assn., 240 U.S. 581, 590)
GARDINERv. BUTLER CO.,245 U.S. 603(1918)
38 S.Ct. 214
GARDINER, TRUSTEE OF THE PERRY REAL ESTATE TRUST,v. WILLIAM S. BUTLER
COMPANY, INCORPORATED, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT.
No. 95.
Argued December 18, 1917.
Decided February 4, 1918.
FollowingFilene's Sons Co. v.Weed, ante, 597,held, that, in a non-statutory receivership proceeding brought to preserve the good will and pay the debts of a company occupying premises as lessee, the lessor, which reentered during the receivership, had a proper claim for rent up to reentry, and for damages based on the lessee's covenant to pay the difference between the rental value at time of reentry and the rent and other payments reserved for the residue of the term.Page 604In Massachusetts, 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 — hence none against the lessee's receivers in proceedings in equity to continue the lessee's business to pay its debts. 230 F. 1021, reversed in part and affirmed in part.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Alexander Whiteside, with whomMr. Bentley W. WarrenandMr. Howard Stockton, Jr., were on the brief, for petitioner.Mr. Frederick H. Nash, with whomMr. Charles F. Choate,Jr., was on the brief, for respondents.
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 F. 1021; 144 C. C.A. 663. This decision, like the other, must be reversed.Page 605

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 logicinvacuo;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.Suttonv.Goodman,194 Mass. 389,395.Central Trust Co. v.Chicago AuditoriumAssociation,240 U.S. 581,590. Upon this claim the decree below is affirmed.Decree reversed.

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS took no part in the decision of this case.