Johnson, J.

The agreed statement of case on appeal indicates that the defendants in challenging the proceedings below assigned five errors. Of these, however, only two are brought forward on brief. Therefore, the other three assignments of error, in support of which no argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 562 et seq. Rose v. Bank, 217 N.C. 600, 9 S.E. 2d 2; Dillingham v. Kligerman, ante, 298.

The remaining assignments, 2 and 5, will be stated and discussed in that order:

Assignment of Error No. 2. — Here the defendant assigns as error “that his Honor confirmed the report of the Commissioners notwithstanding the fact that the Commissioners failed to follow the orders contained in the consent judgment of Honorable Susie Sharp heretofore referred to, and the supplemental judgment of Honorable F. Donald Phillips when he appointed new commissioners in place of the ones who had resigned.”

*419 Tbis assignment of error is supported by no specific exception — tbe only exception in tbe record being tbe general exception to tbe order as set out in tbe appeal entries. It tbus appears tbat tbe assignment of error is fatally defective in failing to point out in wbat particular “tbe Commissioners failed to follow tbe orders” directing partition of tbe land. Hence, tbe assignment, like tbe exception appearing in tbe appeal entries, is broadside. Vestal v. Vending Machine Exchange, 219 N.C. 468, 14 S.E. 2d 427. It is elementary tbat if a litigant would invoke tbe right of review, be must point out specifically and distinctly tbe alleged error. Weaver v. Morgan, 232 N.C. 642, 61 S.E. 2d 916. At most, then, tbis assignment presents only tbe question whether error of law appears on tbe face of tbe record. Weaver v. Morgan, supra; Burnsville v. Boone, 231 N.C. 577, 58 S.E. 2d 351. See also S. v. Williams, post, 429. Here tbe defendants urge that tbe report of tbe commissioners fails to show specifically tbat they took into consideration tbe value of tbe chicken bouse erected by tbe defendant Wesley Thompson on tbe share allotted to tbe plaintiff as directed in tbe judgment of partition. Nothing else appearing, tbis might be treated as error appearing on tbe face of tbe record. However, it further appears on tbe record tbat at tbe bearing below one of tbe commissioners, testifying as a witness for tbe defendants, said “we considered tbe value of tbe chicken bouse, tbe best I can tell, at $200.” Tbe record also indicates tbat while tbe evidence was sharply conflicting on tbe main question of equality of partition, there was substantial evidence tending to show tbat tbe division was fair and equal. It is elementary tbat tbe findings of fact by a trial court are conclusive on appeal if there be evidence to support them. Burnsville v. Boone, supra. Accordingly, while decision as to tbis assignment of error turns on failure to observe established rules of appellate procedure, nevertheless it appears tbat tbe result would have been tbe same if tbe defendants bad complied with tbe procedural requirements.

Assignment of Error No. 5. — Here the assignment is “tbat bis Honor was in error in confirming tbe report of tbe Commissioners when tbe evidence shows tbat their unjustifiable delay in bringing in tbe report resulted in prejudice to tbe rights of tbe defendants.”

Tbis assignment of error, like Assignment No. 2, is not supported by specific exception. It is fatally defective in tbat it fails to point out in wbat particular tbe “delay in bringing in tbe report resulted in prejudice to tbe rights of tbe defendants.” Therefore tbis assignment, also, is broadside and must be overruled. Weaver v. Morgan, supra; Burnsville v. Boone, supra. Tbe mere fact tbat tbe commissioners did not file their report within tbe statutory period of sixty days after notification (G.S. 46-17) does not vitiate tbe report or preclude confirmation.

No error.