Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

(B.) STATUTES OF THE STATES AND TERRITORIES.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

1892, Laws of 1892, c. 689,
$ 130.

Rev. Stat. pt. 2, c. 1, tit. 3.. 70 Tennessee.

1856, Feb. 29, Laws of 1855

56, p. 174, c. 128......171, 173 1858, Mar. 20, Laws of 185758, p. 374, c. 155, § 14.... 200 1860, Mar. 24, Laws of 185960, p. 640, c. 215, § 49 1867, Mar. 8, Priv. Laws of 1866-67, p. 155, c. 53, § 49, 178 1881, Mar. 26, Laws of 1881, p. 26, c. 26

[blocks in formation]

283

art. 5416

272

art. 5418

272

art. 5420

272

art. 5424

272

art. 5426

272

S$ 1770-1784.

267

§ 1785

.267, 273

196

[blocks in formation]

172

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Code of 1881, §§ 2409-2412.. § 2414.......

Wyoming.

145

Texas.

1840, Jan. 20, Paschal's Dig. (4th ed.) art. 978 ... 1848, Mar. 20, Gen. Laws of 1847-48, c. 145, p. 210, 264, 267, 271, 272, 273

1869, Dec. 10, Stat. 1869, c. 41, Comp. Laws of 1876, c. 42.. Rev. Stat. of 1887, § 1103. $ 2221.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

264

[blocks in formation]

CASES ADJUDGED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,

AT

OCTOBER TERM, 1895.

CHEMICAL NATIONAL BANK v. HARTFORD DEPOSIT COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

No. 785. Submitted January 7, 1896. — Decided February 8, 1896.

The legal existence of a corporation is not cut short by its insolvency and the consequent appointment of a receiver; and there is nothing in the statutes relating to national banks which takes them out of the operation of this general rule.

After passing into the hands of a receiver, appointed by the Comptroller of the Currency, under the provisions of the Revised Statutes, a national bank remains liable, during the remainder of the term, for accrued and accruing rent under a lease of the premises occupied by it, although the receiver may have abandoned and surrendered them; but if the lessor, in the exercise of a power conferred by the lease, reënters and relets the premises, the liability of the bank after the reletting is limited to the rent then accrued and unpaid, and the diminution, if any, in the rent for the remainder of the term, after the reletting.

THIS was an action of assumpsit brought by the Hartford Deposit Company against the Chemical National Bank of Chicago and the receiver of the bank in the Superior Court of Cook County to recover damages for a failure to pay rent

VOL. CLXI-1

1

Statement of the Case.

alleged to be due, under a written lease, from August 1, 1893, to April 30, 1894. The cause was submitted to the court for trial on a stipulation as to the facts, of which the lease formed a part; the issues were found in favor of defendants and judgment was rendered accordingly. Plaintiff took the case to the Appellate Court for the first district of Illinois, which affirmed the judgment as to the receiver, but reversed it as to the Chemical National Bank, and entered judgment for the sum of $9000. 58 Ill. App. 256. An appeal was prosecuted to the Supreme Court of Illinois and the judgment of the Appellate Court affirmed. 156 Illinois, 522. This writ of error was thereupon brought.

The facts were thus stated by the Supreme Court:

"The Chemical National Bank of Chicago entered into a lease, dated November 18, 1892, with the Hartford Deposit Company, of a banking office of a certain building owned by the said Hartford Deposit Company. In accordance with its terms the bank paid $2500 on the delivery of said lease. The term was for a period of five years, from May 1, 1893, at an annual rental of $12,000, payable in equal monthly instalments of $1000 in advance, exclusive of and in addition to said first payment of $2500. The bank entered into and took possession. of said premises on May 1, 1893, the first day of said term, and the first instalment of rent fell due and was payable on that day. This instalment was not paid when due, nor had it, or any part of it, been paid when, on May 9, 1893, the bank became insolvent and a national-bank examiner took possession of its assets and of said premises. On July 21 a receiver was duly appointed, and on July 27 he notified the Hartford Deposit Company of his election to terminate said lease after July 31, 1893, so far as he, as receiver, was concerned. On the same day, namely, July 27, said receiver paid to the Hartford Deposit Company the sum of $2709.68, which was, as agreed, the ratable amount of rent due for the period to July 31, inclusive. No other or further rent was paid under said lease by any other person or at any other time. The premises remained vacant until May 1, 1894, when they were relet at a reduced rental."

« PreviousContinue »