Watson v. Watson

Indiana Court of Appeals

Watson v. Watson

144 N.E.2d 529, 127 Ind. App. 591, 1957 Ind. App. LEXIS 162

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 9, 1957

Docket18,867

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 144 N.E.2d 529 (Watson v. Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Watson v. Watson, 144 N.E.2d 529, 127 Ind. App. 591, 1957 Ind. App. LEXIS 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooper, P. J.

The sole error assigned as grounds for reversal of the judgment herein is the action of the trial court in overruling the appellant’s motion for a new trial. Said motion alleges (1) “That the judgment of the court is contrary to law;” (2) “That the judgment of the court is contrary to the evidence;” and (3) “That the judgment of the court is contrary *592 to the law and the evidence.” No other grounds for reversal are specified.

The rule is well established by numerous decisions of this and the Supreme Court, that assigning as a ground for a new trial that the “judgment” is contrary to law or is contrary to the evidence or is contrary to the law and the evidence presents no question either to the trial court or to the court of appeal, since the statute does not recognize such reasons for a new trial. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Schneider (1935), 99 Ind. App. 570, 193 N. E. 690; Holtzman v. Smith (1919), 69 Ind. App. 434, 122 N. E. 18; Lynch v. Milwaukee Harvester Co. (1903), 159 Ind. 675, 65 N. E. 1025; Adkins v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 81, 123 N. E. 2d 891; Deckard v. Ind. State School Bldg. Auth., etc. (1954), 233 Ind. 138, 117 N. E. 367.

As the appellant’s motion for a new trial presented no question to the trial court, said court committed no error in overruling it and as no other alleged error is assigned in this court the judgment must be affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 144 N. E. 2d 529.

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

Cooper, P. J.

The sole error assigned as grounds for reversal of the judgment herein is the action of the trial court in overruling the appellant’s motion for a new trial. Said motion alleges (1) “That the judgment of the court is contrary to law;” (2) “That the judgment of the court is contrary to the evidence;” and (3) “That the judgment of the court is contrary *592 to the law and the evidence.” No other grounds for reversal are specified.

The rule is well established by numerous decisions of this and the Supreme Court, that assigning as a ground for a new trial that the “judgment” is contrary to law or is contrary to the evidence or is contrary to the law and the evidence presents no question either to the trial court or to the court of appeal, since the statute does not recognize such reasons for a new trial. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Schneider (1935), 99 Ind. App. 570, 193 N. E. 690; Holtzman v. Smith (1919), 69 Ind. App. 434, 122 N. E. 18; Lynch v. Milwaukee Harvester Co. (1903), 159 Ind. 675, 65 N. E. 1025; Adkins v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 81, 123 N. E. 2d 891; Deckard v. Ind. State School Bldg. Auth., etc. (1954), 233 Ind. 138, 117 N. E. 367.

As the appellant’s motion for a new trial presented no question to the trial court, said court committed no error in overruling it and as no other alleged error is assigned in this court the judgment must be affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 144 N. E. 2d 529.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 N.E.2d 529, 127 Ind. App. 591, 1957 Ind. App. LEXIS 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-watson-indctapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack