Oldden v. Tonto Realty Corporation

HAND, Before AUGUSTUS N. CLARK, FRANK, Judges. Circuit CLARK, Judge. Circuit bankrupt, When the B. Westermann Inc., Company, bankruptcy petition filed its March Realty on the Tonto Cor- poration, although itself a lessee from fee, the owner of the tain was landlord of cer- space premises 18-20 on West 48th Street, City, New York under a lease with expiring January the By 1948. the time of the the rental become, by adjustment, $22,769.95 per had' year $4,- and there was owing the sum of sum, back rent. This 904.38in latter how- ever, included for rent the month of March; trustee and since the occupied premises, along with a sub- agreed rental, tenant and at the until June arrears, the net amount of after paid rent deducting overlap- March, ping period $3,313.70. premises Thereafter Tonto rerented the substantially rental at a. lower than that the- lease with the bankrupt. reserved in defaulted, however, new tenant months, dispos- and Tonto itself was

two nonpayment sessed its land- January, It then lord filed a claim damages. back rent and for “ipso of the for dam- facto clause” limitation that claim landlord’s an a Under upon unexpired 21), ages the bank the rejection Tonto and of an (Paragraph lease damages upon indemnity the bank lease or “for or under a rupt latter’s agreed had ipso “expire facto shall in should covenant contained such ruptcy lease end,” which no event be an event allowed an amount exceed- and come to (cid:127)cease lease, liqui by ing as the rent reserved without due the landlord the there should be acceleration, computed year succeeding sum be as for the next damages a dated to premises difference the date of the provided representing the surrender of the therein reentry future rent to the the date value of the landlord or of between the cash of landlord, occurs, value the whichever first wheth- the cash rental reserved and as term, bankruptcy, plus exceeding er before or after for the of the an balance accrued, Ap equal unpaid any by governing statute.1 amount to limit set rent acceleration, up this clause the without plying the formula stated in to such date.” Be- statutory provision, liqui cause this bankruptcy found that of the ref- referee application of a eree reduced total claim damages dated allowed to —before $40,307.81, rent, $22,769.95, statutory plus one limitation —would be back rent $3,313.70, $26,083.65. the sum or from which be deducted of the trus- should of On security petition $3,000 review, by Tonto as under the tee’s held to district court lease,2 $37,307.81. $3,000 By deposited leaving total of Bankruptcy Act in be deducted not amendment of from the $43,621.51, a(9), 11 now sub. claim from U.S.C.A. of the allowable $26,083.65, (9), however, of there were to the al claim and added hence modified the referee’s order lowable claims in claims for to allow Tonto’s claim in the contract, $23,083.65. D.C.S.D.N.Y., including breach sum of of F. unexpired realty, Stipp. parties appealed, leases but with the 776. Both provided Paragraph prejudice of this follows: lease shall be without any during right prove term to ages to “If at time here Landlord’s in full dam- by petition prior demised, filed, for rent be accrued shall termi- * * * * * *, lease, paid. then nation of this provision but not This any immediately upon happening lease this shall without be any entry any rights event, prejudice given such and without oth or to Landlord by any pertinent by Landlord, expire prove any er act this lease shall for statute thereby. ipso and amounts allowed facto cease come to an end making any with the and if the computation, same force effect as “In such happening any of the event date such then cash rental value the demised premises were piration for prima the date herein fixed the ex shall deemed be facie to upon any reletting, term of It is lease. bo the realized rental that, stipulated agreed reletting accomplished and if such can be by event of term the termination of the Landlord within a time reasonable by any lease, happening lease such after such termination of this and event, forthwith, upon present Landlord shall the then cash value of the fu- any termination, pro and such other ture rents hereunder reserved to the contrary unexpired portion visions of this lease to the not Landlord for the withstanding, hereby become entitled to recover the term demised shall be deemed liquidated damages sum, per and caused to be such if invested at four provisions (4%) simple such interest, pro- breach of this cent duce the as will equal amount period difference future over the question.” between the then cash value of the rent time unexpired reserved hereunder deposit was made the ten portion hereby demised, term and pursuant Paragraph ant 42 of the (cid:127)the then cash rental value of the de lease, providing that it should secu be premises unexpired por mised for such rity perform the full faithful hereby demised, tion of the term unless of all the terms ance and conditions of governs gov the statute which or shall lease, that it should bear interest at proceeding ern dam per which such annum, that, if the tenant 2% ages proved are to fully performed, $2,000 be limits or shall limit of it should capable expiration the amount of of be returned at ing proved, originally term, in which case Landlord demised notwithstand prove ing (cid:127)shall be entitled to as and for termination reason of sooner the ap liquidated equal default, amount tenant’s the balance plied allowed such stat under on the last month’s rent. provisions paragraph ute. The of this ex- is due lease.” contending nothing trustee We are clear that Tonto had security, rent, cept a(9), subject the arrears of less the valid claim $313.70, asserting that i.e., specified the creditor and should be claimed, latter’s limitations. deposit from the the Collier on 1898. 14th Ed. deducted rather than from total allowable claim, ref- and hence the however, presents appeal, The landlord’s eree’s, court’s, computa- rather than the interesting far question. an and novel As be followed. tion should determine, can no decisions there are prior present specifically to the de- case that no trustee’s contention The ciding required whether a is landlord the lease should be damages for breach of deduct the amount held under of premise the admitted allowed has as its provided by a lease damages from total limitation, ter was fact that the lease or from the total claim allowable term, minating the.lease before the demised 63, under (9) Bankruptcy Act. of step that no but requires also background Some consideration of the provision for the should have made history therefore, legislation is, damages in event payment of of necessary. obviously just is so termination. Since this parties attempting what to do were Bankruptcy origi- The Act of 1898 as 21, the of Paragraph trustee’s construction nally provability enacted silent to the least, tortured, say the language is of claims for rent to the future. accrue justifying the “scant consideration” of the courts, however, The virtually unan- point of ignoring referee and the total the so imous deciding that rent destined to ac- court, vigor by the which the trustee of filing crue after the petition á was not of complains. ously asserts Thus he capable theiie proof, of since there was no fixed unexpired could be “for the no liability merely absolutely owing, but de- demised,” hereby portion of the term since contingent upon mand uncertain events. In terms; expired by but the the term had its Cir., 667, Appel, re Roth & 2 181 F. 31 L.R. paragraph quoted 270; line above in A.,N.S., first of Twenty-First Wells v. St. — “term” Co., the footnote—shows that in Cir., Realty 237; 12 F.2d Watson v. years. Merrill, original Cir., 719; term of ten 359, tended Under the relevant state 136 F. 69 L.R.A. authorities, Inc., Properties, as Manhattan Irving Trust substantially Co., 320; well as the identical case 54 S.Ct. 78 L.Ed. 824; Realty Co., Metropolitan Operating Inc., In re Outfitters’ Stores, In re Chain Irving Cir., Cir., appeal 69 F.2d affirmed Trust Co. 66 F.2d dismissed Mal- Perry, Inc., 293 Co., U.S. avazos et 709, v. Irving v. A. W. al. U.S. express provision 609; 79 L.Ed. 54 S.Ct. In re Mar breach, Garage, Inc., Cir., is a for which dam 759; shall’s In re F. 63 F.2d valid; ages provided, concededly is but Stores, & W. Grand 5-10-25 Cent attempted pro distinction here that the appeal 74 F.2d dismissed Urban Properties vision for fails because of lack of Co. v. 296 U. This, altogether “breach” seems to the word too thin intent, us S. 80 L.Ed. 469. justify thwarting clear an logic, was not a matter but “of particularly when the paragraph has forgotten that Holmes, (per Lord Coke” speak “liquidated damages J., does by caused in Gardiner v. William S. But- provisions such breach of this ler & 38 S.Ct. only problem Indeed, pre- purview (9) still within the of subd. and sub ipso ject facto clause sented the one limitation. Hippodrome Bldg. would seem 1934 amendment to be wheth- Co. v. damages provided Trust Co., 753, 756, er such a clause are cer provable limitation without tiorari denied 302 U.S. a(4), ; súb. U.S.C.A. 82 L.Ed. 578 3 Collier on ac- upon express implied 1941, 1881-1907; Newman, founded 14th Ed. claims Bankruptcy whether Rent contract —or limitation Claims and Cor n (9) applicable. porate Reorganization, subd. Here the land- 43 Col.L.Rev.

lord, calling although Roeder, attention Tale L.J. see problem, Landlords, Bankruptcy, 77B, 'has not claimed the 'full dam- ages .limitation; 2S5, 299; Finletter, without and it Corn.L.Q. cf. seems (cid:127) Congress surely Reorganization, better view that Law of' 291-292; .clauses; intended to include such well and 2 Gerdes bn Cor provisions porate Reorganizations, other nature, of a like rationally protecting most it means of 505), themselves event bankruptcy. with the the tenant’s this doctrine A first difficult reconcile bankruptcy expedient was the in the liberal treatment reservation lease generally types right of re-entry landlord and cases other result indemnity Hence the inclusion of contracts.4 covenant breaches though the landlord, lessee all loss rent oc was often harsh as of future by bankruptcy. prevent did the exhaustion of casioned branded this the courts But disproportionately large contingent incap also a estates for proof, able of filing since at the claims. time bankruptcy petition there still re Beyond claims the fact landlords’ uncertainty mained as to whether or not future rent were option would be exercised the land event, the earlier also cases Inc, Properties, lord. Manhattan ing v. Irv bankruptcy of tenant constituted Co, supra; Ap Trust Roth In re & lease, of the absolute termination pel, supra; Soliday, Cir, Slocum 1 v. 183 any kind claim of remained no F. 410. Resort was then had the so- Jefferson, D.C.Ky, In re 93 the landlord. clause, ipso called facto in the lease which 948; Co, re Hays, In Foster F. D.C.W.D.Ky, & Ward automatically upon filing terminates of F. 879. 117 This rule was petition, exemplified by Paragraph however, supplanted, majority soon view 21 of the instant lease. This covenant had all no effect at eventually judicial received approval, as we claims; they provable, on such seen, in have Irving y. Trust A. Co. W. discharge and the debtor did not receive a supra, Perry, Inc, which was not decided therefrom. The landlord thus retained a passage until after the 1934 amendm damages valid for as long as he did ent.6 obligations not terminate the of by re-entering; justi Although easily but unless there result could be was specific stipulation for legal grounds, technical contained fied on its conse lease, re-entry distinctly quence presented did ten- release the unattractive standpoint liability policy.7 from for ant future elements from the rents. South It Watson, Cir, depend Side Trust Co. v. 3 Co, made landlords’ claims 200 on the nice F. 50; law, In re property Gallacher Coal ties of ancient D.C.N.D. than rather Ala, 183; Co, aspects 205 In re practical F. H. M. Lasker on Then of modern business. 53, landlords, Cir, 251 Meyran 3 F. certiorari especially -depres denied in S.Ct, Watt, Trustee, 562, years on, 248 v. 8, U.S. sion from 1929 39 when there was depreciation A values, 63 L.Ed. 422.5 natural consequence a tremendous of rental sought particularly landlords hard to discover some were hit the bank 5 Supreme re-entry however, be, in 4The Court Central Trust The Chicago specific purpose Co. of Illinois v. Auditorium of termination. Mc 581, Ass’n, Woods, Cir, 86 240 U.S. S.Ct. 60 L. Donnell v. 1 F. 298 434. 6 Ed. held that The Court there consti- held that “The claim contract, upon breach tutes is not reserved or that, damages such, upon from such and breach is founded express independent contract, whenever should be there and hence really very 63(a) no insurmountable obstacle to words their within of section liquidation. (4).” page 311, O’Keefe, Brown v. at See 300 293 U.S. 55 S.Ct. at 827; page 151, 57 81 79 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. L.Ed. 379. See also note Elliott, Maynard 3, supra. 283 v. U.S. 51 S. 1028; legal 7 Horst, periodicals L.Ed. Roehm 75 Ct. been 953; problem. Among 44 178 U.S. 20 S.Ct. blind to valuable Corp., Douglas Cir, Frank, Publix Paramount 2 In re discussions and 219; Reorganizations, In re F. & F.2d W. Grand Landlords’ Claims in 72 5-10- 42 1003; Cir, ap Fallon, Stores, Cent 2 Yale L.J. 25 Lessors Cred Properties Brooklyn peal Bankruptcy, dismissed Urban itors 4 Co. v. L.Rev. Newman, supra 8; Co, 11; Radin, Trust note S.Ct. 469; Beverlyridge Co., Bankrupt re for Unaccrued Claims Rent 818; Cir, cy, Collier on Bank Calif.L.Rev. Calif.L.Rev. 1; Boeder, op. supra, ruptcy, 3; 1878-1886. cit. This has note Schwabacher rule great applied variety Weinstein, and Rent in Bank situa- Claims ruptcy, 213; Notes, than that leases. S3 Col.L.Rev. other tions Drug 488; in In re Harv.L.Rev. collection cases Owl Mich.L.Rev. F.Supp. D.C.Nev, Co, 44 Yale L.J. 670. tenants; even ruptcies corporate between interests conflicting the various above, though claims for survived outlined their and reached entities most bankruptcy, corporate study serious part research and on the legislators. left City cases and landlords were Trust did not Bank Farmers’ permanently holding Co. claims valid Moreover, main corporations.8 defunct Irv- Kuehner v. afford object ing 445, 453, Act to U.S. bank an honest means of rehabilitation of L.Ed. 340. As Professor Moore states, rupt through discharge represented debts statutory “The solution nondischargeable character happy imposed thwarted medium and credi- on the large of these rent claims. See Central tors the desirable limited sacrifice order to achieve Chicago Illinois v. Auditorium Trust Co. facilitating end of debtor’s- Ass’n, by extending scope rehabilitation discharge.” L.Ed. 811. But allowance claims swer, full of such his 3 Collier on appropriate seem the an did not 14th Ed. light 1894. In the of this general creditors purpose since other would and statutory pro- proportionately, suffer the claims them intent,11 clearly expressed its vision disproportionate in selves would often be should construe give it so as it full force suffered, damage par effect, actual amount to and not allow nullified it to be ticularly subsequent by crafty a rise in the event draftsmanship particular in truth, the In landlord in rental values. op. leases. See 3 Collier on position general not in the creditors, as other same cit. 1900. Nor should a landlord obtain an very compelling and is no there advantage beyond usually accorded par why he should on reason be treated merely under the statute because he has- For, all, he has been with them. been shrewd or economically powerful compensated up until date the bank enough to have obtained a substantial de- regains he ruptcy petition, original his posit The contrary result upon bankruptcy,9 unexpired and the assets would mean thát a security landlord with really way benefits the term in no the assets of would be able statutory to exceed the limit bankrupt’s estate. See Trust Co. of by as much security holds, as the he and Co., Holding Georgia Whitehall that landlords would receive different treat- Metropolitan In re Chain ment in proceedings, depend- Stores, Inc., supra. ing upon-the existence and size of the se- curity possession. in their Thus This, then, the two* state of affairs primary objectives 63, adopted a(9), Congress in 1934- sub. Newman, would § when ment to amend a, Compare be flaunted. making claims sub. Rent § provable.10 specifically future rent The Claims in Corporate and Re- compromise organization, an obvious amendment was Col.L.Rev. 322-324. problem (9) is said This to have which is now found in been subd. §of particularly a, a(9). in acute the case of land- sub. 11 U.S.C.A. § sub. stores, who, holding 77B, applying corporate lords of chain leases Sec. to reor- days ganizations, high rentals made in boom at and also amended th.s at prices by lowered b(10), with and sales same time faced addition subd. country, throughout resorted bank- Stat. 912. This amendment was sub- ruptcy breaking stantially means of a(9), similar to § sub. ex- Douglas Frank, supra cept leases. 'that the limitation was extended 7; Smith, years’ Chain Stores and the to three note rent. For discussion of Plague, constitutionality 58 Financial City function, World its Lease see Comment, Irving 32 Mich.L.Rev. Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Trust importance of Co., For discussion criterion, Irving Irving see Kuehner Co., this and Kuehner v. Trust su- pra. Trust 340, pointing legislative pro out dif “The of this vision, between ference status landlord- and the successive alterations of' general wording Congress and the usual creditor its both creditor Houses of Congress explanation conference, of the action of and in to which are we re placing ferred, interpretation,, the two on different bases cannot its affect reorganizations 77R, corporate language adopt under § since the act as b(10). b(10), § U.S.C.A. sub. ed is Kuehner v. clear.” 10 By adding (7) Co., supra, page 449, subdivision 299 U.S. at new 57 S. a, 4(a), page 300, 48 Stat. c. Ct. at 81 L.Ed. 340. respec- from a stat- justify to the divergent this be deduced rules as all would And ute but claims, define tive claims. the total dam- purporting allowable If which, instance, security, ages they saying nothing about limited in the one course, benefit gets full in- the landlord should likewise limited in the other be claim, application his thus stance. through its forth, him, payment in affording far full may suggested It be dividend. place of the usual small renders anomalous landlord, by where the the situation an- is also the this result Persuasive to obtaining an unusual virtue of guar- alogy dealing of the decisions advance, ly large deposit in a bal has still Hip- anty or contracts for rent. deducting ance in his hands after the claim Bldg. podrome v.Co. year’s one rent allowed the statute. denied certiorari Any academic, question may here be we apparently security ordinarily obtained reorganiza- held that lessor’s claim a vary from one to landlords seems six against corporation which proceeding tion only; months’ dis advance guaranteed payment rent re- reported covered no case where even performance the lease served in approaches statutory limit of one covenants, having lessee’s rent. But it does not seem to us rejected by in bank- the lessee’s trustee should situation be considered anomalous. ruptcy premises having and the been relet If we are correct that the statute sets a loss, subject three-year at a on limit for breach a lease provision 77B(b) (10), U.S.C.A. § bankruptcy, then the en landlord 207(b) (10). We said that if were not more; titled to that and not sum guarantor reorganization principal; so “a is liable otherwise would be in the for more than cannot nature of a forfeiture event of bank statute; guar- be anty subject meaning ruptcy, and forfeitures are not favored secondary obligation is a and must be the courts. Seattle Theatre Rialto Co. v. pri- to the same limitations as the Heritage, Cir., 4 F.2d 668. It is clear Then, mary.” in In re Schulte Retail Stores end, that when the is at an and no Cir., Corp., 105 F.2d we extended damages due, security can thereafter be the doctrine to the case aof under Fifty-Sixth must be returned. Cannon v. circumstances, though surety similar even a Inc., Cir., Garage, St. 45 F.2d 110. primary obligor a Although is himself. the Hence, amendment, even before the 1934 admittedly instant case is different in that only the could be retained as pledged the tenant here property his own to claims, against possible and the cases as possibility default, cover the and the upon complete that termination sumed rights party of a third way in no in- upon bankruptcy, any surplus over volved, yet in both situations there is an at- allowable in was re tempt part on the of the landlord to insure turnable the trustee.12 to The statute now performance by tenant. The difference makes termination lease com technical, purely viz., is that in one case fixed; plete, and anything security put up is insurance the ten- go excess should to the trustee for the himself, ant while in the other it is the general creditors. credit standing party procured third a tenant; by the Judgment difference is affirmed. insufficient 12Thus, Homann, Cir., in In Corp., re Investment Co. v. Steem Electric controversy only Cir., concerned 128 F.2d construed Missouri holding whether or not a certain clause of the law as that the clause did not lease, continuing until the end of the survive relurned the In original obligations lease, term Heritage, Seattle Rialto Theatre Co. v. bankruptcy. court, Cir., survived The follow 4 F.2d the coui’t deemed ing situs, York, law of Now held certain securities the landlord a did; deposit deposit that return, it hence the not and ordered their since original returnable until the end of the lease had terminated and there were damages owing term. This decision was followed in no more to the landlord. Dairy Foltis-Fischer, Inc., Barnett, Model Co. v. Re 12 F.2d cer- Luria, Cigar and in In re tiorari denied United Stores Co. v. D.C.E.D.N.Y., F.Supp. Rayher, Trustee, 305. On a 47 S. situation, Realty propriety similar fact Floro & Ct. Congress in- I think as to see no reason to that FRANK, Judge (dissenting Circuit who, bargaining with appeal). that tended a landlord respondent’s the decision on stability ishe a tenant of whose'financial to Coke’s Partly a devotion because of doubtful, other- not and to whom he would precedents, feudal delight in antiquarian re- property, wise lease his demands day,1 it had perhaps even obsolescent is, se- security, respect ceives to that with held, say, before my colleagues differently from other curity, be treated to 1934 amendment to the Act, ordinary An creditors. secured secured noth be allowed could that a landlord creditor, 93, h, sub. 11 U.S.C.A. § § bankruptcy proceedings ing in his lessee’s h, security only to can retain his n an damages resulting from whole; he point makes him where it by the bank breach of lease occasioned only estate so is allowed to share hard often on ruptcy. ruling was Such a unsecured; he the value of far is on the also hard But was the landlord. claim, security, is from his total deducted bankrupt for, if later ac he discharged and, is, that deficiency, he if there is to likely be sub assets, they to quired extent, permitted an unsecured creditor and jected undischarged claim of participate. say, a to creditor, That is secured aimed to landlord.2 amendment claim; such, provable has no hardships. these avoid he only so far as may he share in the estate creditor; such, he is colleagues my is unsecured agree I But cannot every creditor. like other unsecured Congress, treated amendment—de- that that of leases signed to law un-feudalize legislative wording or Nothing with- justice to to do some and out landlords sub. sub. the 1934amendment to creditors lessees— injqring the other a, modify any purpose to shows' any Henry Georgian ani- was activated h, peculiar any plan to accord a status mosity to of land. It is difficult owners syllable There landlord. secured ón the is Congress has be- believe .for me subject security in the amend- collectivist-minded, opposed come so Congress had ment, nothing suggest characteristics, profit our the common h, subject Under in mind. landlord system, that it intended he, wholly secured, like a landlord if other secured quote my colleagues) “ob- (to creditor, has no merely advantage because he has tain partially has he is claim. if He one economically powerful been shrewd unsecured; respect With his unsecured obtained a de- enough to have substantial (cid:127) think, is, precisely I balance, in the same he posit security” and that landlords should any position aas landlord without * * * not different treatment “receive maximum, think, one-year-rent ap- I depending size upon the existence and just it plies his unsecured balance possession.” wholly in their Per- the securities to the claim of a unsecured does Why haps by fixing it is of such a maxi- desirable such (cid:127)landlord. legislation regarded as about, amending should be levelling brought be mum should h I cannot understand. deprived thus landlords should be statute good bargains they benefits of Hip- have I see how decisions in

.of made. fail to our problem Bldg. that is podrome But not v. the that, Co. courts; were, might consider if it certiorari denied F.2d in day land owners of our do and In re generally, Corp., “unearned increment” Retail benefit from Schulte Stores supply any pertinent analogies. from “unearned decrement.”3 us suffer with again Boyd, was securities as- of the return L. question might hopes sumed, the main Ed. frustrate summary seeking reorganization suit or not debtors in whether proper. obligations their avoid un- trustee Holdsworth, History English der leases. See Yale L.J. 1003. The See 479, 489-491; probably Law, in Vol. cf. amendment 77B§ 1923) (3d inspired part in desire II Ed. Vol. re- nightmare Forness, reoi'ganizers 125 F. States lieve United Boyd 928, 938, 939. case. 2d Moreover, Abrams, called attention Revolution Land ruling, coupled (1939). the fact that (cid:127)to of Northern Pac. doctrine R. Co. v. th'e guarantor FLINT SHEET et al. YOUNGSTOWN cases we that where those or bankrupt lessee & TUBE CO. of the lease reorganization process is itself in No. 404. limited 77B, must be claim the landlord’s Appeals, Circuit. Circuit Court of Second if way in the same estate the estate of July 18, 1944. the lessee.4 that, reasons for the I think Because noted, my colleagues reached above conclusion, not discuss I shall an erroneous 3 of the suggested note problem I discuss opinion. Nor shall majority light of whether, in question detail the reasoning in Kuehner v. the Court’s constitutionality concerning the provision 77B(b) (l0), 3-year constitutional; I provision one-year is limitation— merely note that such a severe saying Congress, while one in which that, corporate reorganizations in bank years’ rent ruptcy, a maximum three substantially reasonable, very fixed this explanation of with no smaller maximum brings a rational basis distinction— provision statute close that, therefore, invalidity and edge of interpreted create such hardships may bring it still The decision is the more closer.5 here previous serious because of our decision 1934 amendment is retroactive.6 applica peculiarly It will be harsh in its where, al tion to leases before made security is less than the ac though the security exceeds in damages, the value tual rent, un next amount trustee bank here the the decision der recover that ex

ruptcy entitled to will be cess. 1061; Blodgett which, 4 Holden, 60 L.Ed. no cases since v. found I have brought 142, 148, amendment, 48 275 U.S. S.Ct. a suit was 75 L. the 1934 206; guarantor Ed. Harriman v. Interstate Com solvent Comm., merce 211 U.S. tenant. 29 S. a lease 253; Knights Templars’ position Ct. 53 L.Ed. case of the landlord posi- Indemnity analogous perhaps & Masons’ Life Co. v. Jar would man, 197, 205, 187 U.S. bar ref- S.Ct. that at like tion cases 139; Johnson, L.Ed. Panama R. Co. v. erence 375, 390, 264 U.S. S.Ct. 68 L. Hud & v. Delaware States United 748; Barnett, Ed. Baender v. 255 U.S. 407, 408, Co., 29 S.Ct. son 597; 226, 41 S.Ct. 65 L.Ed. 836; United States v. L.Ed. Alexander, v. Lucas 210, 220, Brewery, 251 U.S. Standard 73 L.Ed. S.Ct. 61 A.L.R. 229; of Texas State 64 S.Ct. S.Ct. 906; Reinecke v. Northern Trust 204, 217, Texas R. U.S. Eastern 339, 348, 349, U.S. 49 S.Ct. Bratton 410, 66 A.L.R. 397. Chandler, U.S. Fuey Co., Cir., United States v. re Shoe Jin Winn 394, 401, 402, Moy, 713.

Case Details

Case Name: Oldden v. Tonto Realty Corporation

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: May 17, 1944

Citation: 143 F.2d 916

Docket Number: 282

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.