APPEAL — Assignment of Errors — "Decision Contrary to Law" — Motion For New Trial. — The specification that "the decision of the trial court is contrary to law" may properly be made as a ground for a new trial, (Section 2-2401 (6), Burns' 1946 Replacement), and when so specified, it may be presented to Supreme Court by an assignment that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial, but it may not be independently assigned as error as it does not present any question on appeal.
DRAPER, C.J.
The assignment of errors in this case contains but one specification. It reads as follows:
"The decision of the trial court is contrary to law."
This specification may properly be made as a ground for new trial. Burns' 1946 Repl., § 2-2401 (6). When so specified it may be presented to this court by an assignment that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for new trial. It may not be independently assigned as error and when such is done no question is thereby presented to this court, and the judgment will be affirmed. Doss v. Yingling (1933), 204 Ind. 571, 185 N.E. 281; Migatz v. Stieglitz (1906), 166 Ind. 361, 77 N.E. 400; Better Taste Popcorn Co. v. Drake (1952), 122 Ind. App. 696, 107 N.E.2d 801; Parliament v. Taber (1951), 121 Ind. App. 559, 100 N.E.2d 902; LaSalle Ext. Univ. v. Kronewitter (1949), 119 Ind. App. 341, 86 N.E.2d 707; Greenwell v. Cunningham (1948), 118 Ind. App. 251, 76 N.E.2d 684; Flanagan, Wiltrout Hamilton, § 2386, p. 156; Lowe's Rev. of Works, Vol. IV, § 61.139.
So ordered.
Gilkison, J., not participating.
NOTE. — Reported in 117 N.E.2d 367.