Schlein v. Gairoard
May Schlein, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Camille L. Gairoard, Defendant-Respondent
Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam.
Save as presently stated, the judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the memorandum delivered by Circuit Court Judge Ackerson.
In reaching the stated result, we do not, under the circumstances exhibited, find it necessary to express, and we do not express, any opinion as to whether respondent did or did not *365 have the right to pay the full purchase price ($25,000) for the stock at any time he elected without waiting to pay it, as provided, in installments, or whether respondent did or did not have the right (had he asserted it) to accelerate the payment of the agreed installments of the purchase price.
Judgment is affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Pebskie, Porter, Colie, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 16.
For reversal — None.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 14 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- State v. Ernst & Young, LLP
- Brunswick Hills Racquet Club, Inc. v. Route 18 Shopping Center Associates
- Countryside Orthopaedics, P.C. v. Peyton
- Penthouse International, Ltd., and Boardwalk Properties, Inc. v. Dominion Federal Savings & Loan Association, and Melrod, Redman & Gartlan, P.C., Dominion Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Queen City Savings & Loan Association
- Penthouse International, Ltd. v. Dominion Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
- La Porte v. Bott
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.