Greenblatt Coal Co. v. Jacobs

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Greenblatt Coal Co. v. Jacobs

170 A. 618, 12 N.J. Misc. 175, 1934 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 169

DecidedFebruary 2, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A. 618 (Greenblatt Coal Co. v. Jacobs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greenblatt Coal Co. v. Jacobs, 170 A. 618, 12 N.J. Misc. 175, 1934 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 169 (N.J. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The “brief specification of the determinations or directions of the District Court” required by rule 145 of this court as assigned by appellant, brings up no ruling of the District Court in such wise as to present a proper basis for review. There are three specifications. The first is that “the trial court erred in awarding judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant.” This was definitely condemned by the Court of Errors and Appeals in Cohn v. Passaic National Bank, 109 N. J. L. 449; 162 Atl. Rep. 555. The second is that “there was no legal evidence adduced to support the judgment in favor of plaintiff.” This points to no judicial action to be reviewed. Klein v. Shryer, 106 N. J. L. 432; 150 Atl. Rep. 321. The third is that “the judgment in favor of plaintiff is contrary to law.” This has been overruled many times as constituting no specification of anything beyond mere general error. State v. Lavine, 96 N. J. L. 356, 357 (12); 115 Atl. Rep. 335; Booth v. Keegan, 108 N. J. L. 538, 539 (1); 159 Atl. Rep. 402.

If there be no specification at all, the practice is to dismiss the appeal; but if the judgment .cannot, be reversed on any ground specified, it will be. affirmed. Sentliffer v. Jacobs, 84 N. J. L. 128, 130; 86 Atl. Rep. 929; Booth v. Keegan, supra. ■ 1

No alleged error being properly specified, the judgment is accordingly affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The “brief specification of the determinations or directions of the District Court” required by rule 145 of this court as assigned by appellant, brings up no ruling of the District Court in such wise as to present a proper basis for review. There are three specifications. The first is that “the trial court erred in awarding judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant.” This was definitely condemned by the Court of Errors and Appeals in Cohn v. Passaic National Bank, 109 N. J. L. 449; 162 Atl. Rep. 555. The second is that “there was no legal evidence adduced to support the judgment in favor of plaintiff.” This points to no judicial action to be reviewed. Klein v. Shryer, 106 N. J. L. 432; 150 Atl. Rep. 321. The third is that “the judgment in favor of plaintiff is contrary to law.” This has been overruled many times as constituting no specification of anything beyond mere general error. State v. Lavine, 96 N. J. L. 356, 357 (12); 115 Atl. Rep. 335; Booth v. Keegan, 108 N. J. L. 538, 539 (1); 159 Atl. Rep. 402.

If there be no specification at all, the practice is to dismiss the appeal; but if the judgment .cannot, be reversed on any ground specified, it will be. affirmed. Sentliffer v. Jacobs, 84 N. J. L. 128, 130; 86 Atl. Rep. 929; Booth v. Keegan, supra. ■ 1

No alleged error being properly specified, the judgment is accordingly affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A. 618, 12 N.J. Misc. 175, 1934 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenblatt-coal-co-v-jacobs-nj-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack