Legal Opinion

Masset v. Ruh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 9, 1922PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Kelby, J.:

The action was brought to compel the defendant to specifically perform an option to buy the premises described in the complaint, given by the defendant to the plaintiff; this option it was alleged was renewed by reason of the renewal of a former lease existing between the parties.

On the 9th day of August, 1916, Louis Ruh and Clara Ruh, his wife, of 291 Ridgewood avenue, as landlords, let the premises 295 Ridgewood avenue, Brooklyn, to the plaintiff, George Masset. The term was for three years, commencing August 15, 1916, at the yearly rent or sum of $540, payable $45 on the first…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Maughlin v. PerryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1872
  2. Schroeder v. GemeinderNevada Supreme Court · 1875
  3. Thomas v. Gottlieb, Bauernschmidt, Straus Brewing Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1905
  4. Rutgers v. HunterNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
  5. Product Company v. Dunn.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lewis v. LudlamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922

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

Powered by the Exa API