· 4/20/1891

Henderson v. Carbondale Coal & Coke Co.

Citations

140 U.S. 25
11 S. Ct. 691
35 L. Ed. 332
1891 U.S. LEXIS 2426

Syllabus

The rule in Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, that “ in'equity as in admiralty, when several persons join in one suit to assert several and distinct interests, and those interests alone are in dispute, the amount of the interest of each is the limit of the appellate jurisdiction,” affirmed and applied. Equity leans against lessors seeking to enforce a forfeiture of the lease, and only decrees in their favor when there is full, clear and strict proof of a legal right thereto. Leased property in Illinois being in the hands of a receiver, and there being no evidence that he lived at St. Louis, proof of the mailing of a registered letter to him at' that place, claiming a forfeiture of the lease for non-payment of rent, and of an endorsement on the receipt of the receiver’s name “ per C. M. Pierce ” is not such proof of the personal service of demand and notice as authorizes a decree of forfeiture under the statutes of Illinois. The presumption that a letter mailed in the ordinary way reaches its destination, is a presumption of fact, not of law, and does not arise unless it also appears that the person to whom it is addressed resides in the city or the town to which it is addressed. No foundation is laid for a decree of forfeiture of a lease for non-payment of rent, if it appears that the lease described in the notice of claim of forfeiture is a different lease from the lease produced and proved in the judicial proceedings to obtain such a decree. Under the statute of Illinois full, clear and strict proof of delivery to the proper party of a demand for payment of rent in arrear, and notice of claim of forfeiture of a lease in case of failure to do so, is necessary, in order to entitle the lessor to a decree of forfeiture. A court of equity has full power over its orders and decrees during the term at which they are entered; and may grant a rehearing of a cause at the term at which it was heard and decided. When a party

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that the presumption that mail is received within a normal delivery time is \not a presumption of law but one of fact\
noting that the presumption that mail is received within a normal delivery time is \not a presumption of law but one of fact\
noting that the presumption that mail is received within a normal delivery time is \not a presumption of law but one of fact\
“[Fjorfeitures are never favored. Equity always leans against them, and only decrees in their favor when there is full, clear and strict proof of a legal right thereto.”
‘[Forfeitures are never favored. Equity always leans against them, and only decrees in their favor when there is full, clear and strict proof of a legal right thereto.’
‘[Forfeitures are never favored. Equity always leans against them, and only decrees in their favor when there is full, clear and strict proof of a legal right thereto.’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brewer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.