Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/299/464/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 23:58:22+00:00

Document:
1. Landlord's claim for injury due to rejection of lease by trustee in bankruptcy, preserved by saving clause limiting release. Schwartz v. Irvin Trust Co., ante p. 299 U. S. 456. P. 299 U. S. 465.
2. Although the claim of a landlord, in reorganization proceedings under § 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, for injury due to the trustee's rejection of the lease, is not barred by the surrender of the premises by the trustee, the acceptance thereof by the landlord and the assignment of the lease to a new tenant nominated by the landlord, no such claim exists where, by the terms of the lease itself, all liability of the lessee under it was terminated by the assignment and its accompaniments. P. 299 U. S. 466.
Certiorari to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed an order of the District Court, rejecting part of a claim of a landlord for injury due to rejection of the lease by the trustee in bankruptcy.
upon a ground similar to that upon which it based its decision in Schwartz v. Irving Trust Co., ante, p. 299 U. S. 456.
by the United Company, the petitioner refiled the same claims therein. The items for accrued taxes and cost of repairs are not in dispute. The trustee objected to the claim for loss of future rent and for anticipatory breach of the covenant to build in 1942. A special master recommended the allowance of the amount of the taxes and repairs and the disallowance of the balance of the claim. Upon appeal, a majority of the Circuit Court of Appeals held that, although the trustee had decided to reject the lease and had filed a petition for leave so to do, or to assign, as the claimant had elected to have the lease assigned and had accepted surrender of the premises by requesting assignment to her nominee without reserving any rights under the lease against the debtor, there was no basis under § 77B for allowance of the claim. One judge concurred, holding that the qualification of the release left the way open for proof of any claim permitted by the lease itself and the provisions of 77B, but that no claim for future rent could be sustained because of a provision in the lease to the effect that, if default should occur, transfer of the lessee's interest in the demised premises together with all improvements thereon, all rents, issues, and profits accrued or to accrue, and all insurance policies upon the buildings and improvements, without compensation therefor to the lessee should constitute full satisfaction of the lessor's rights under the lease, and the transfer thereof should not be considered as a penalty, but as liquidating the damages suffered by the termination of the lease. We think that the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals was right for the reasons stated in the concurring opinion.
City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Irving Trust Co., ante, p. 299 U. S. 433; Schwartz v. Irving Trust Co., ante, p. 299 U. S. 456.
City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Irving Trust Company, supra.
Schwartz v. Irving Trust Company, supra.

References: v. 
 § 77
 v. 
 § 77
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.