Case Name: PAUL ZUK, PLAINTIFF, v. ANTON ELSHKEWICH, DEFENDANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1931-10-05
Citations: 9 N.J. Misc. 1079
Docket Number: 
Parties: PAUL ZUK, PLAINTIFF, v. ANTON ELSHKEWICH, DEFENDANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 1079–1079

Head Matter:
PAUL ZUK, PLAINTIFF, v. ANTON ELSHKEWICH, DEFENDANT.
Submitted May 5, 1931
Decided October 5, 1931.
Before Justices Campbell, Lloyd and Bodine.
Eor the plaintiff, Heller & Boss (Aaron Heller, of counsel).
For the defendant, Edward H. Baches and William E. Holmwood.

Opinion:
Per Curtam.
The plaintiff had judgment for $470. The action grew out of a cross-road automobile accident in Garfield, and was brought for the recovery of personal and property damage.
The appellant has not filed with the clerk of this court a brief specification of the determination or direction of the District Court with respect to which he is dissatisfied in point of law, as required by rule 145 of the Supreme Court. "Such specification corresponds to an assignment of errors at common law, and if there be no specification, there is no error assigned, and while the judgment might perhaps be affirmed (see Champlin v. Barthold, 82 N. J. L. 13), the practice has been, in the absence of any specification whatever, to dismiss the appeal. Sentliffer v. Jacobs, ante 84, p. 128." Helme Co. v. Baranowski, 84 Id. 530.
The appeal will be dismissed.