Supreme Court of the United States, 1918

Gardiner v. William S. Butler & Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 4, 1918 · Holmes, Brandéis

245 U.S. 603; 38 S. Ct. 214; 62 L. Ed. 505; 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2094 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Alexander Whiteside, with whom Mr. Bentley W. Warren and Mr. Howard Stockton, Jr., were on the brief, for petitioner., Mr. Frederick H. Nash, with whom Mr. Charles F. Choate, Jr., was on the brief, for respondents.

Cases that cite this one

58 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

In re McAllister-Mohler Co. (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1930)
Ruth E. Oscar Charles Spinosa v. University Students Co-Operative Association George Proper (9th Cir. 1992)
Bellikka v. Green (Or. 1988)
Eberhart v. Mayor of Baltimore (Md. 1981)
McFarland v. Barron (S.D. 1969)
McCutcheon v. State Building Authority (N.J. 1953)
Oldden v. Tonto Realty Corporation (2d Cir. 1944)
Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Fox Theatres Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1936)
Rogers v. United Grape Products, Inc. (District Court, W.D. New York 1933)
Lonegan v. State (N.J. 2003)
In re Best Products Co., Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia 1998)
Portland 76 Auto/Truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Co. (9th Cir. 1998)
Riverview Realty Co. v. Perosio (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
Hall v. Mayor of Baltimore (Md. 1969)
City of Phoenix v. PHOENIX CIVIC AUD. & CON. CENT. (Ariz. 1965)
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Civic Auditorium & Convention Center Ass'n (Ariz. 1965)
Feneck v. Nowakowski (Conn. 1959)
United States v. 15.3 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in the City of Scranton (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1957)
In re New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (2d Cir. 1938)
Dickinson v. Universal Service Stations, Inc. (9th Cir. 1938)
Irving Trust Co. v. D. A. Schulte, Inc. (2d Cir. 1936)
Jersey Boulevard Corp. v. Lerner Stores Corp. (Md. 1935)
First Nat. Bank of Chicago v. First Nat. Bank of Wheaton (7th Cir. 1935)
Spillinger v. C. O. Miller Co. (2d Cir. 1935)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.