
    CENTRAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. WHITE BUS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
    Argued October 6, 1936
    Decided November 18, 1936.
    
      Before Justices Trenchard, Bodine and Heher.
    For the plaintiff-appellant, Reuben F. Goldstein.
    
    For the defendant-respondent, Richard Spitz.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Trenchard, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff below to recover the balance alleged to be due for premium under a policy of insurance. The defendant filed a counterclaim averring an over-payment thereof and demanding the amount of such over-payment.

The District Court judge, sitting without a jury, rendered judgment for the defendant and against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff appeals.

The only specifications of alleged errors filed by the appellant are these:

“1. The said court erred in rendering judgment in favor of the defendant-respondent on the plaintiff-appellant’s case, and erred in rendering judgment in favor of the defendant-respondent against the plaintiff-appellant on the defendant-respondent’s counter-claim.
“2. The said court erred in failing to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellant on the plaintiff-appellant’s case, and further erred in failing to enter a judgment in favor of the. plaintiff-appellant upon the defendant-respondent’s counter-claim.”

Now the mere assertion (as here) that there was error in giving judgment to one party rather than to another, is insufficient as a specification of error, and will not justify a review of such judgment. Caspert v. Empire Furniture Co., 114 N. J. L. 546; Miller v. Newark Hardware Co., 112 Id. 300; Golden Realty Co. v. Grant Building and Loan Association, 109 Id. 129; Cohn v. Passaic National Bank and Trust Co., 109 Id. 449; Eckert v. Nazzaro, 109 Id. 136; Greenblatt Coal Co. v. Jacobs, 12 N. J. Mis. R. 175; Casale v. Public Service Electric and Gas Co., 13 Id. 266; Kosick v. Standard Properties, 13 Id. 219. See, also, Biczis v. Public Service Co-ordinated Transport, 115 N. J. L. 408.

The appeal will be dismissed, with costs.  