Chemical National Bank of Chicago v. Hartford Deposit Company


Chemical National Bank of Chicago v. Hartford Deposit Company
by Melvin Fuller
Syllabus
822544Chemical National Bank of Chicago v. Hartford Deposit Company — SyllabusMelvin Fuller
Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

161 U.S. 1

Chemical National Bank of Chicago  v.  Hartford Deposit Company

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 $2,500 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 installments of $1,000, in advance, exclusive of and in addition to said first payment of $2,500. The bank entered into and took possession of said premises on May 1, 1893, the first day of said term, and the first installment of rent fell due and was payable on that day. This installment 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 21st a receiver was duly appointed, and on July 27th 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 27th, said receiver paid to the Hartford Deposit Company the sum of $2,709.68, which was, as agreed, the ratable amount of rent due for the period to July 31st, 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.' Hiram T. Cilbert, for plaintiff in error.

Charles H. Baldwin, for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes edit

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse