Motion to dismiss this appeal is filed' on the ground that error is not assigned upon the action of the court in overruling mtotron for new trial, and that there are no assignments which present for review any matters appearing upon the face of the record.

Assuming that t-he first, second, and fifth assignments are sufficient to present the matters intended to be urged, they cannot Fe considered because there is no assignment of error.' presenting the action of the court fit overruling- the motion for new trial, and When this is nut done no action that seeks to have reviewed' errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below is properly presented to this court, and such cannot be. reviewed. O’Neil v. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 Pac. 141; Maddox v. Barrett, 44 Okla. 101, 143 Pac. 673; Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 Pac. 703; Nichols v. Dexter, 52 Okla. 152, 152 Pac. 817; McDonald v. Wilson, 29 Okla. 309, 116 Pac. 920; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Dyer, 36 Okla. 112, 128 Pac. 265; Butler v. Okla. St. Bank, 36 Okla. 611, 129 Pac. 750; Bice v. Myers, 45 Okla. 507, 145 Pac. 1150; Creech v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 47 Okla. 100, 147 Pac. 775; Aaron v. American Nat. Bk., 60 Okla. 137, 159 Pac. 246.

The third assignment is that the court erred in rendering judgment for the defendant while the fourth is that the court erred in not rendering judgment for the plaintiff. These assignments are too indefinite and general to present any question for review. Commerce Trust Co. v. School District No. 37, 47 Okla. 111, 147 Pac. 303; Jones v. Lee, 43 Okla. 257, 142 Pac. 996.

Plaintiff in error asks to be permitted to amend -his petition in error by assigning as error the action of the court in overruling its motion for a new trial, but since more than six months have expired since the rendition and entry of the judgment appealed from, this cannot be done. Creech v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 47 Okla. 100, 147 Pac. 775; Turner v. First National Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 Pac. 703; Ardmore Oil & Milling Co. v. Doggett Grain Co., 32 Okla. 280, 122 Pac. 241.

The app-ea-l is therefore dismissed.