Cooper v. Kensil

ARTHUR M. COOPER AND STANLEY FRANKEL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. THEODORE J. KENSIL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Argued December 13, 1954.

Decided December 20, 1954.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · decided 1954-12-20

Relies on 1 N.J. Super. 568 - Montclair Distributing Co. v. Arnold Bakers, Inc. · Cline v. Kurzweil · Hardy v. Hangen

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1954-12-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1992

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Before Judges CLAPP, JAYNE and FRANCIS.

¶2Mr. Louis B. LeDuc argued the cause for the appellants.

¶3 *411Mr. George D. Rothermel argued the cause for the respondent (Mr. Samuel Kalikman, of counsel).

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The 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).

¶6It 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).