COOPER v. KENSIL

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).