Gardiner v. William S. Butler & Co.

Supreme Court

Gardiner v. William S. Butler & Co.

245 U.S. 603, 38 S. Ct. 214, 62 L. Ed. 505, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2094

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 4, 1918

Docket95

StatusPublished

Cited by65 cases

This text of 245 U.S. 603 (Gardiner v. William S. Butler & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gardiner v. William S. Butler & Co., 245 U.S. 603, 38 S. Ct. 214, 62 L. Ed. 505, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2094 (1918).

Pincite

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 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.

*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 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.

Me. Justice Brandéis took no part in the decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

*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 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.

Me. Justice Brandéis took no part in the decision of this case.

1998-2 Trade Cases P 72,237, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6428, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8897 Portland 76 Auto/truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Company of California, Dba Unocal Corporation National Auto/truckstops Incorporated, and Gordon A. Barron, Jr. Joan L. Barron, Counter-Defendants-Appellants. Portland 76 Auto/truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Company of California, Dba Unocal Corporation, and National Auto/truckstops Incorporated William Osborne Paul Kohler

153 F.3d 938 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)

Plaza Investment Co. v. Abel

153 N.W.2d 379 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1993)

Ruth E. Oscar Charles Spinosa v. University Students Co-Operative Association George Proper

965 F.2d 783 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Bellikka v. Green

762 P.2d 997 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1988)

First National Bank of Gainesville v. Grainger (In Re Grainger)

20 B.R. 7 (D. South Carolina, 1981)

Eberhart v. Mayor of Baltimore

433 A.2d 1118 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1981)

Riverview Realty Co. v. Perosio

350 A.2d 517 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1976)

Parkwood Realty Co. v. Marcano

77 Misc. 2d 690 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1974)

57 E. 54 Realty Corp. v. Gay Nineties Realty Corp.

71 Misc. 2d 353 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1972)

Hall v. Mayor of Baltimore

250 A.2d 233 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1969)

McFarland v. Barron

164 N.W.2d 607 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1969)

City of Phoenix v. PHOENIX CIVIC AUD. & CON. CENT.

408 P.2d 818 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1965)

City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Civic Auditorium & Convention Center Ass'n

408 P.2d 818 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1965)

Feneck v. Nowakowski

151 A.2d 891 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1959)

United States v. 15.3 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in the City of Scranton

154 F. Supp. 770 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1957)

McCutcheon v. State Building Authority

97 A.2d 663 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 U.S. 603, 38 S. Ct. 214, 62 L. Ed. 505, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardiner-v-william-s-butler-co-scotus-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack