Estate of Alexander, Sr., Deceased v. Alexander (1966), 138 Ind. App. 443, 212 N.E.2d 911, 915; Draime v. Draime, (Supra) Holst v. Holst, [Ind. App., 212 N.E.2d 26] (Supra).' (Our emphasis.)
This court is required to consider the evidence most favorable to the Appellee and all reasonable inferences in his favor. McDaniel v. McDaniel, 245 Ind. 551, 201 N.E.2d 215 (1964); Shula v. Shula, 235 Ind. 210, 132 N.E.2d 612 (1956); Holst v. Holst, 139 Ind. App. 683, 212 N.E.2d 26 (1965); Grant v. Grant, 141 Ind. App. 521, 230 N.E.2d 339 (1967); Von Pein v. Von Pein, 136 Ind. App. 283, 200 N.E.2d 230 (1964); Tomchany v. Tomchany, 134 Ind. App. 27, 185 N.E.2d 301 (1962); and Draime v. Draime, 132 Ind. App. 99, 173 N.E.2d 70 (1961). The fact that circumstances would have justified a different conclusion than that reached by the trial court does not warrant this court in substituting its judgment for that of the 3, 4. trial court.
"The question of whether or not there was an abuse of discretion must be apparent on the face of the record, and it is incumbent upon the appellant to show that there has been such an abuse of discretion." Holst v. Holst (1966), 139 Ind. App. 683, 212 N.E.2d 26, 28, 7 Ind. Dec. 199, 202. Appellee relies upon Proctor v. Proctor (1955), 125 Ind. App. 692, 125 N.E.2d 443, wherein this court affirmed a judgment granting the husband a divorce against his wife and awarding to appellee-husband all of their property including that held as tenants by the entirety.
The motion for new trial was overruled and the sole assignment of error on appeal to this court is the overruling of the motion for new trial. Since this is an appeal in part from a negative judgment against the plaintiff-appellant, the assignment of error that the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence presents 1. no question for our consideration. Daisy Holst v. Henry Jack Holst (1965), 139 Ind. App. 683, 212 N.E.2d 26, 7 Ind. Dec., 199; Helen J. Scott v. Robert E. Scott (1965), 140 Ind. App. 320, 209 N.E.2d 49, 6 Ind. Dec. 94. This leaves for our consideration the question of whether, under the evidence, the court's finding and judgment was contrary to law.