Cohen v. Pool

• Decision Date: 27 January 1915
• Docket Number: No. 24.,24.
• Citation: 84 N.J.Eq. 189,84 N.J.Eq. 77,94 A. 37
• Parties: COHEN v. POOL.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

94 A. 37

84 N.J.Eq. 77

84 N.J.Eq. 189

COHEN

v. POOL.

No. 24.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 27, 1915.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Bill by Aaron M. Cohen against Augustus G. Pool. From a decree for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The opinion of Vice Chancellor Howell is as follows:

The bill of complaint in this case is filed for the purpose of compelling the specific performance of a document alleged to be a contract, and for the sale of real estate, of which the following is a copy:

"A. G. Pool,

"Manufacturer of Carriages, Wagons and Trucks,

"506-508 Elizabeth Avenue.

"Elizabeth, N. J., March 3, 1913.

"I will give property No. 506-508 Elizabeth Ave for rent at Sixty Dollars $60.00/100 a month for five years lease and five years more, and all repairing must be done by said 2nd party of said first party inside and look over said time afer to Thursday March 6. inst. at noon about 1 to 3 P. M. and I will sine all papers wich must be made by attorney and said party of 2. will the right to buy said said property for Twenty thousand dollars $20000 any time said party No 2 will take property. All repairing outside must be done first party.

"[Signed] A. G. Pool."

The defendant objects upon the following grounds: (1) That the so-called contract is merely an agreement for a lease; (2) that it is void for uncertainty; (3) lack of parties, it being alleged that the complainant was not the only party to the agreement; (4) that the contract is not mutual.

The lack of mutuality is cured by the beginning of the suit. It was held in Krah v. Wassmer, 75 N. J. Eq. 109, 71 Atl. 404, that a unilateral contract to convey lands ceases to be unilateral on the purchaser filing a hill for specific performance thereof. The decision of this point, therefore, must be in favor of the complainant.

The other three points must be considered together. It is a well-settled principle of law that this court will not make a decree for the specific performance of a contract in a case in which the contract sought to be performed is uncertain (Wharton v. Stoutenburg, 35 N. J. Eq. 266; Clow v. Taylor, 27 N. J. Eq. 418; Brown v. Brown, 33 N. J. Eq. 650); the reason being that otherwise the court could not be assured that it is enforcing the agreement which the parties had made. The terms of the agreement, therefore, must be such as to demonstrate to the court the capability of accurate and exact specific performance. The first objection that strikes the eye is that no lessee is named in the agreement itself. The agreement was executed at the house of the...