This is an appeal from an order of the superior court of Coconino county denying a motion of the appellant (defendant in the loAver court) to set aside and vacate the judgment and decree of divorce heretofore- rendered, and praying for a new trial.

Rule VII of this court reads, in part, as folloAvs:

“2. The appellant’s opening brief shall contain, in the order herein indicated: . . .

“(d) The assignments of error relied upon.”

Rule XII reads, in part, as follows :

“1. All assignments of error must distinctly specify each ground of error relied upon and the particular ruling complained of. If the particular ruling complained of has been embodied in a motion for new trial, with other rulings, or in any motion, or in a bill of exceptions, or in a statement of facts, or otherwise in the record, it must nevertheless be referred to in the assignment of errors, or it will be deemed to be waived. ’ ’

“3. Any objection to the ruling or action of the court below will be deemed waived in this court unless it has been assigned as error in the manner above provided. ’ ’

We have examined defendant’s brief carefully, and nowhere therein do we find any assignments of error whatever. The nearest approach thereto is contained in the following language:

“Brief of the Law.

‘1 First: Did the Superior Court of Coconino County have jurisdiction to hear and determine Appellant’s Motion to Vacate Decree of Divorce!

“Second: Was the judgment rendered March 15, 1934, a void judgment!”

That this is insufficient, under the rules, as an assignment of error cannot be doubted, nor that the lack of assignments requires an affirmance of the order *74 of the trial court. Thornburg v. Frye, 44 Ariz. 282, 36 Pac. (2d) 548.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

McALISTER, C. J., and ROSS, J., concur.