Where error is assigned in a petition for certiorari upon a ruling based on a motion for a new trial, and the grounds of the motion are set forth in the petition, a general assignment of error, that the court erred in so ruling, is sufficient. The petition in this case sets out literally the grounds of the motion for a new trial, and does thus “fully and distinctly sét forth the errors complained of.” The first headnote in Crouch v. Spooner, 8 Ga. App. 626 (69 S. E. 1129), is as follows: “Where the error alleged is in the granting or denying of a new trial, one assignment of error is sufficient to reach all the grounds of the motion on which the grant or refusal was based.” See Butler v. Hall, 7 Ga. App. 777 (68 S. E. 331). In Eule 8 of the Court of Appeals (Civil Code of 1910, § 6332) we find the following: “Where the error alleged is in the granting or denying óf a new trial, one assignment of error is sufficient to reach all the grounds of the motion *394on which the grant or refusal was based.” See Reese v. Miller, 33 Ga. App. 442 (2) (126 S. E. 904); Hopkins Investment Co. v. Crawford, 35 Ga. App. 331, 334 (132 S. E. 925); East River National Bank v. Ellman, 36 Ga. App. 263, 264 (136 S. E. 799); Huxford v. Southern Pine Co., 124 Ga. 181 (52 S. E. 439); Rigell v. Sirmans, 123 Ga. 455 (51 S. E. 381); Gray v. Phillips, 88 Ga. 199 (5) (14 S. E. 205). The judge of the superior court erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari.

Judgment reversed.