Glass v. Bailey Et Al‪.‬

The appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus to obtain the custody of her infant son, Ronald Lee Meadows. Judgment
went for the appellees. The appellant's motion for new trial, which asserts (1) that the decision is not sustained by sufficient
evidence and (2) that it is contrary to law, was overruled, and she appeals. Although the first specification in appellant's motion for new trial presents no question, since a negative decision may
not be attacked upon the ground that there is a lack of evidence to sustain it, the appellant may properly assert under the
second that by the decision she was denied relief to which she was entitled under the evidence as construed most favorably
to the appellees. Wilson, Admx. v. Rollings (1938), 214 Ind. 155, 14 N.E.2d 905; Mckee v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
(1943), 222 Ind. 10, 51 N.E.2d 474; Dept. of Insurance v. Indiana Trav. Assur. Co. (1945), 115 Ind. App. 285, 58 N.E.2d 761;
Wadler v. Mogul Rubber Corporation (1945), 116 Ind. App. 152, 61 N.E.2d 472; Pearson Co. v. Cohen (1949), 118 Ind. App. 699,
83 N.E.2d 433.