McClay v. Gluck
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1911, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- McKinley v. Macbeth (Minn. 1911)
- Jones v. Longerbeam (S.D. 1909)
- Bowman v. Wright (Neb. 1902)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Action to recover a balance claimed to be due upon a contract for tbe erection of a building, and for extra work on the building. • Plaintiff had a verdict. The evidence was sufficient to justify it. It can hardly be said that any question of law is presented. Parties may by parol modify a written executory contract under seal, either by changing its terms or waiving its conditions, if they have acted under and executed it as so modified. That the parties to this contract agreed on the waivers and modifications claimed by plaintiff, and acted under and executed it accordingly, were questions for the jury, and the evidence justifies their finding.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.