Opinion
No. 17,940.
Filed October 17, 1949. Rehearing denied November 21, 1949.
1. APPEAL — Assignment of Errors — Overruling Motion for Directed Verdict — Not Proper Independent Assignment of Error — No Question Presented for Review. — Assignment of error that trial court erred at the conclusion of the testimony of the appellee and after it had rested in overruling the motion of the appellant for a directed judgment, was not a proper independent assignment of error and presents no question for review. p. 575.
2. APPEAL — Assignment of Errors — Amount of Judgment Recovered — Not Proper Independent Assignment of Error — No Question Presented for Review. — Assignment of error that trial court erred in its judgment that the appellee recover from the appellant the sum of two hundred twenty-five dollars damages, with costs, and the possession of automobile, was not a proper independent assignment of error and presented no question for review. p. 575.
3. APPEAL — Assignment of Errors — Amount of Judgment Recovered — Not Proper Independent Assignment of Error — No Question Presented for Review. — Assignment of error that trial court erred in decreeing a judgment for two hundred twenty-five dollars and costs against appellant, was not a proper independent assignment of error and presented no question for review. p. 575.
4. APPEAL — Assignment of Errors — Judgment of Possession — Not Proper Independent Assignment of Error — No Question Presented for Review. — Assignment of error that trial court erred in decreeing that appellee was entitled to recover possession of an automobile, was not a proper independent assignment of error and presented no question for review. p. 575.
5. APPEAL — Assignment of Errors — Judgment Contrary to Law and to the Evidence — Not Proper Independent Assignment of Error — No Question Presented for Review. — Assignment of error that trial court erred in its judgment against the appellant which is contrary to the law and the evidence in the case, was not a proper independent assignment of error and presented no question for review. p. 575.
6. APPEAL — Assignment of Errors — Overruling Motion for New Trial — Proper Independent Assignment of Error — Assignment of error that trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for new trial was a proper independent assignment of error. p. 576.
7. APPEAL — Assignment of Errors — Overruling Motion for New Trial — Statutory Grounds for New Trial Not Presented in Motion — No Question Presented for Review. — Where appellant assigned as error the overruling of his motion for new trial, but such motion did not present any statutory causes for a new trial, no question was presented for review. p. 576.
From the Municipal Court of Marion County, Room No. 1, Joseph T. Markey, Judge.
Action by Used Car Loan Company, Incorporated against James Stutz, doing business as Stutz Service Station to recover damages and possession of an automobile. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed. By the court in banc.
D.O. Mitchell, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Silas Lipman, of Indianapolis, for appellee.
The assignments of error in this case are as follows:
"1. The Court erred at the conclusion of the testimony of the appellee and after it had rested in overruling the motion of the appellant for a directed judgment.
"2. The Court erred in its judgment that the appellee recover from the appellant the sum of two hundred twenty-five ($225.00) dollars damages, with costs, and the possession of one Lincoln Sedan Automobile Zephyr, Model 73, year 1939, Motor No. H-75500.
"3. The Court erred in decreeing a judgment for two hundred twenty-five ($225.00) dollars and costs against appellant.
"4. The Court erred in decreeing the appellee was entitled to recover the possession of one Lincoln Sedan Automobile Zephyr, Model 73, year 1939, Motor No. H-75500.
"5. The Court erred in its judgment against the appellant which is contrary to the law and the evidence in the case, and in subsequently overruling appellant's motion for new trial."
The first four assignments of error, and that part of the fifth which reads: "The Court erred in its judgment against the appellant which is contrary to the law and the evidence 1-5. in the case" are not proper independent assignments, and present no question for review. Rothchild v. Citizens Loan Co. (1936), 102 Ind. App. 397, 2 N.E.2d 810; Simpson v. Fuller (1944), 114 Ind. App. 583, 51 N.E.2d 870; Income Guaranty Co. v. Zienlinski (1939), 107 Ind. App. 248, 21 N.E.2d 87; LaSalle Extension University v. Kronewitter (1949), 119 Ind. App. 341, 86 N.E.2d 707.
The fifth assignment of error is a proper assignment insofar as it is based upon the overruling of appellant's motion for new trial. We have examined this motion, however, and find 6, 7. that it does not present any of the statutory causes for a new trial. Hence no question is presented for review.
The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.
NOTE. — Reported in 88 N.E.2d 50.