Following
Filene's Sons Co. v. Weed, ante, 245 U. S. 597,
held that, in a nonstatutory receivership proceeding
brought to preserve the goodwill 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 245 U. S. 604
In Massachusetts, in the absence of statute or express contract,
s 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 it debts.
230 F. 1021 reversed in part and affirmed in part.
The case is stated in the opinion.
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 goodwill 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 Co., just considered,
ante, 245 U. S. 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. This decision, like the other,
must be reversed.
Page 245 U. S. 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 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 Mass. 389, 395;
Central Trust
Co. v. Chicago Auditorium Association, 240 U.
S. 581,
240 U. S. 590.
Upon this claim, the decree below is affirmed.
Decree reversed.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS took no part in the decision of this
case.
