The first and second assignments are too general and indefinite to merit consideration under the Rules of this Court which require that assignments of error shall show specifically wherein the action complained of is erroneous. See Rules, Williams' Annotated Code, vol. 7, page 546; 2 Ency. Pl. Pr., page 953; Grundy County v. Tennessee Co., etc., Co., 94 Tenn. 295, 298, 303, 29 S.W. 116; Stone v. Stonecipher, 7 Tenn. App. 614, 617; Elbinger Shoe Co. v. Thomas, 1 Tenn. App. 161, 162, 163; Thurman v. Bradford [3 Higgins, 474], 3 Tenn. Civ. App. 474, 475; Adamant Stone Roofing Co. v. Vaughn, 7 Tenn. App. 170, 173; Memphis v. Byrne, 9 Tenn. App. 379, 382; Taylor v. Taylor, 14 Tenn. App. 101, 120, 121; Pollard v. Beene, 20 Tenn. App. 83, 88, 95 S.W.2d 943."

The first and second assignments are too general and indefinite to merit consideration under the Rules of this Court which require that assignments of error shall show specifically wherein the action complained of is erroneous. See Rules, Williams' Annotated Code, vol. 7, page 546; 2 Ency. Pl. Pr., page 953; Grundy County v. Tennessee Coal, etc., Co., 94 Tenn. 295, 298, 303, 29 S.W. 116; Stone v. Stonecipher, 7 Tenn. App. 614, 617; Elbinger Shoe Co. v. Thomas, 1 Tenn. App. 161, 162, 163; Thurman v. Bradford, 3 Tenn. Civ. App. 474, 475; Adamant Stone Roofing Co. v. Vaughn, 7 Tenn. App. 170, 173; Memphis v. Byrne, 9 Tenn. App. 379, 382; Taylor v. Taylor, 14 Tenn. App. 101, 120, 121; Pollard v. Beene, 20 Tenn. App. 83, 88, 95 S.W.2d 943. The third and fourth assignments of error, supra, are meager, but when considered in connection with the appellant's statement of the case, brief and written argument, we think they may be treated as a sufficient compliance with the Rules to justify their consideration as assignments of error.