Assuming that the first, second, and fifth assignments are sufficient to present the matters intended to be urged, they cannot be considered because there is no assignment of error presenting the action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial, and when this is not 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 P. 141; Maddox v. Barrett, 44 Okla. 101, 143 P. 673; Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 P. 703; Nichols v. Dexter, 52 Okla. 152, 152 P. 817; McDonald v. Wilson, 29 Okla. 309, 116 P. 920; St. L., I, M. S. Ry. Co. v. Dyer, 36 Okla. 112, 128 P. 265; Butler v. Okla. St. Bank, 36 Okla. 611, 129 P. 750; Bice v. Myers, 45 Okla. 507, 145 P. 1150; Creech v. C., R.I. P. Ry. Co., 47 Okla. 100, 147 P. 775; Aaron v. American Nat. Bk., 60 Okla. 137, 159 P. 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.

" The petition in error examined, and this first ground of plaintiff's motion to dismiss found to be only too everlastingly true. Nichols et al. v. Dexter, 52 Okla. 152, 152 P. 817, and cases therein cited on this question; Avery v. Hays, 44 Okla. 71, 144 P. 624; Maddox v. Barrett, 44 Okla. 101, 143 P. 673; Nidiffer v. Nidiffer, 44 Okla. 218, 144 P. 150: Beugler v. Polk. 46 Okla. 403, 148 P. 990. The motion for a new trial was overruled, and exceptions saved by defendant on October 29, 1915, and the petition in error with case-made attached was filed in this court on April 25, 1916.

The petition in error does not assign the overruling of the motion for new trial as error. This court has repeatedly held that errors occurring during the trial cannot be considered by this court, unless a motion for new trial has been made by the complaining party and acted upon by the trial court and its ruling assigned as error in the Supreme Court. Kee v. Park et al., 32 Okla. 302, 122 P. 712; Stinch-Comb v. Myers, 28 Okla. 597, 115 P. 602; St. L. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Leake et al., 34 Okla. 77, 123 P. 1125; Nidiffer v. Nidiffer, 44 Okla. 218, 144 P. 350; Maddox v. Barrett, 44 Okla. 101, 143 P. 673; Avery et al. v. Hayes, 44 Okla. 71 144 P. 624. There being nothing presented by the record for this court to review, the cause is affirmed.

And, as the petition in error does not assign the overruling of the motion for new trial as error, errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial cannot be considered in this court. Avery et al. v. Hays, 44 Okla. 71, 144 P. 624; Maddox v. Barrett, 44 Okla. 101, 143 P. 673; Nidiffer v. Nidiffer, 44 Okla. 218, 144 P. 350. This also has been repeatedly held by this court.