Case Name: ARTHUR M. COOPER AND STANLEY FRANKEL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. THEODORE J. KENSIL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1954-12-20
Citations: 33 N.J. Super. 410
Docket Number: 
Parties: ARTHUR M. COOPER AND STANLEY FRANKEL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. THEODORE J. KENSIL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 410–411

Head Matter:
ARTHUR M. COOPER AND STANLEY FRANKEL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. THEODORE J. KENSIL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued December 13, 1954
Decided December 20, 1954.
Before Judges Clapp, Jayne and Francis.
Mr. Louis B. LeDuc argued the cause for the appellants.
Mr. George D. Rothermel argued the cause for the respondent (Mr. Samuel Kalikman, of counsel).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Haneman reported in 31 N. J. Super. 87 (Ch. Div. 1954).
It may be noted also as a fundamental matter that the remedy of specific performance is not available where the right is "dim." (Jayne, V. C., Cline v. Kurzweil, 141 N. J. Eq. 508, 514 (Ch. 1948), affirmed 1 N. J. 407 (1949)). Such relief is granted only when the right is clear, distinct and definite. DiCataldo v. Harold Corp., 15 N. J. Super. 471 (Ch. Div. 1951); Montclair Distributing Co. v. Arnold Bakers, Inc., 1 N. J. Super. 568, 576 (Ch. Div. 1948); Hardy v. Hangen, 134 N. J. Eq. 176 (Ch. 1943).