
    Amalia R. Gluck and her husband et al., complainants-appellants, v. Rynda Development Company et al., defendants-respondents.
    [Argued October 22d, 1926.
    Decided January 31st, 1927.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Berry, whose opinion is reported in 99 N. J. Eq. 788.
    
    
      Mrs. Amalia B. Gluclc, Mr. Maurice B. Gluclc and Mr. Fried Horn, pro se, for the appellants.
    
      Mr. Samuel D. Williams, Mr. Jacob Hauptman, Messrs. De Turóle & West and Messrs. Bilcer & Biker, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

Vice-Chancellor Berry, who heard this case in the court of chancery, advised a decree dismissing the complainants’ bill of complaint.

Our reading of the record leads us to the same conclusion as that of the learned vice-chancellor. We agree with the findings of fact as made by the vice-chancellor. We also agree with his application of the legal principles.

The decree of the court of chancery dismissing the complainants’ bill is therefore affirmed and the decree is in all other respects affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trenchard, Min-turn, Kalisoit, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hbteield, JJ. IS.

For reversal — None.  