Legal Opinion

Gluck v. Rynda Development Co.

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided July 5, 1926PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

I will dispose of this matter now. I have allowed the fullest latitude in the trial of this cause, because I thought it best to have a complete record of the whole transaction, so that there will be no question hereafter as to the basis of this decision.

This bill seeks the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, entered into between the defendant Rynda Development Company as vendor and Chemtec Company as vendee. The complainant Amalia R. Gluck is the assignee of the Chemtec Company. The complainant Maurice B. Gluck is her husband, and, I believe, the real party in interest.…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Deweese v. ReinhardSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  2. Vulcan Detinning Co. v. American Can Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1907
  3. Neubeck v. NeubeckSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1922
  4. Commonwealth v. FiliatreauCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
  5. Houtz v. HellmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Holmes v. Kimco Realty Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
  2. Peters v. Public Service Corp. of N.J.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942
  3. Kutschinski v. ThompsonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927
  4. Pfender v. PfenderNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929
  5. Meyer v. BlackerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API