Chem. Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Hartford Deposit Co.

• Decision Date: 14 June 1895
• Citation: 156 Ill. 522,41 N.E. 225
• Parties: CHEMICAL NAT. BANK OF CHICAGO v. HARTFORD DEPOSIT CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

156 Ill. 522

41 N.E. 225

CHEMICAL NAT. BANK OF CHICAGO

v.HARTFORD DEPOSIT CO.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 14, 1895.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Assumpsit by the Hartford Deposit Company against the Chemical National Bank of Chicago and Eli C. Tourtelot, as receiver of the Chemical National Bank of Chicago. Defendants obtained judgment, which was reversed by the appellate court as to the bank and affirmed as to the receiver. The bank appeals. Affirmed.

Duncan & Gilbert, for appellant.

Burnham & Baldwin, for appellee.

CRAIG, J.

This was an action brought by the Hartford Deposit Company against the Chemical National Bank of Chicago and Eli C. Tourtelot, as receiver of the bank, to recover damages for a failure to pay rent alleged to be due under a written lease from August 1, 1893, to April 31, 1894. The facts were agreed upon, and they are substantially stated in the opinion of the appellate court, as follows: ‘The Chemical National Bank of Chicago entered into a lease dated November 18, 1892, with the Hartford Deposit Company, of a banking office in 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 May _____ 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.’

It will be observed that nothing was done by the lessor to terminate the lease. The receiver gave notice of his election to terminate the lease on July 31st, so far as he, as receiver, was concerned. This action, however, on his part, had no effect on the lease as respects its validity or binding force between the lessor and the Chemical National Bank. There was a contract in writing existing between these parties, which fixed their obligations and determined their rights and liabilities, and the receiver was clothed with no power to do any act which would impair the obligation of that contract. It may be conceded, as held in Trust Co. v. Armstrong, 35 Fed. 567, if the charter of the Chemical National Bank had been forfeited, and the corporation dissolved by decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, the lease might be regarded as terminated, for the reason that, after the dissolution of the corporation, no lessee existed. But such is not this case. No proceeding has been instituted to forfeit the charter of the Chemical National Bank, and no decree dissolving the corporation has ever been rendered. It is, however, insistet that the appointment of a receiver of a national banking association by the comptroller of the currency on account of its insolvency amounts, for all practical purposes, to a dissolution of such association. The comptroller of the currency has such supervisory power over national banks, and such only, as has been conferred by the acts of congress, and in determining the effect to be given to his action in the appointment of a receiver it is necessary to go to the statute. If congress intended that the mere act of appointing a receiver on the part of the comptroller should forfeit the charter of a national bank, and work a dissolution of the corporation, surely that deliberate body would, in the enactment of the law, have used language indicating an intention of that character. The following sections of the acts of congress have been cited in the brief, as showing the authority of the comptroller to appoint receivers. Section 1 of the act of congress approved June 30, 1876 (Pratt, Dig. p. 120), provides as follows: ‘That whenever any national banking association shall be dissolved, and its rights, privileges and franchises declared forfeited, as prescribed in section 5239 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or whenever any creditor of any national banking association shall have obtained a judgment against it in any court of record and made application, accompanied by a certificate from the clerk of the court stating that such judgment has been rendered and has remained unpaid for the space of thirty days, or whenever the comptroller shall become satisfied of the insolvency of the national banking association, he may, after due examination of its affairs, in either case, appoint a receiver, who shall proceed to close up such association, and enforce the personal liability of the shareholders, as provided in section 5234 of said statutes.’ Section 5234 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (Pratt, Dig. p. 84) provides as follows: ‘Sec. 5234. On becoming satisfied, as specified in sections 5226 and 5227, that any association has refused to pay its circulating notes, as therein mentioned, and is in default, the...