
    AETNA BUILDING & LOAN ASS’N v. SMITH et ux.
    No. 8569
    Opinion Filed Dec. 11, 1917.
    (169 Pac. 1091.)
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Assignments <of EiTor— Sufficiency.
    Where assignments of error are so indefinite and uncertain as not to point out the errors complained of, and do not direct the court’s attention to any fact showing cause for reversal, the Supreme Court will not consider them.
    Error from District Court, Washita County; Thomas A. Edwards, Judge.
    Action between the Aetna Building & Loan Association and J. W. Smith and wife. Judgment for the latter, and the former brings error.
    Dismissed.
    John S. Dean, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith, Jones & Smith, for defendants ia error.
   HAB.DT, J.

The only errors assigned are:

“The court below erred in said case by-rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff below and against defendant below,” and “the court below erred in refusing to render judgment in favor.of defendant below on its answer and cross-petition.”

The motion to dismiss is sustained. The assignments are too general and indefinite to present any question for review to the Supreme court in that neither of them point out any specific error nor direct the attention of the court to any fact showing cause for reversal. Commerce Trust Co. v. School Dist. 27, 47 Okla. 111, 147 Pac. 303; Jones v. Lee, 43 Okla. 257, 142 Pac. 996; Nat. Surety Co. v. First Bank of Texola, 67 Okla. 110, 169 Pac. 1091.  