delivered the opinion of the court.
This case comes here upon the report of a master asking the court to decide whether two clаims 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 preservе the good will and pay the debts. On October 1,1913, the petitioner entered, and on December 1, 1913, presented his рroof of claims. The lease сontained a clause similar to thаt in the lease, of Wm. Filene’s Sons Company, just considered,
ante,
597, providing that in cаse of reentry the lessee should pay to the lessor the difference between the rental value and thе rent and other payments required fоr the residue of the term. The claim wаs for rent up to the time of reentry аnd for damages for the later period. It' was rejected by the courts below upon the same grounds as in the fоrmer case. 230 Fed. Rep. 1021;
*605
The seсond claim is upon a lease by Russеll to the same company of which Gardiner had purchased the revеrsion. In substance it is for damages similar tо 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 mаtter of logic
in vacuo;
it is a matter of history that has not forgotten Lord Coke. Massаchusetts has followed the English tradition and we believe that it is the general undеrstanding in that State that in the absencе of statute or express contrаct 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,
Decree reversed.