Case ID: or_61/html/0181-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Burnett", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued February 21,
    decided March 5, 1912.
    CLOYES v. ECKERN.
    [121 Pac. 804.]
    Appeal and Error — Harmless Error.
    In view of Section 3, Article VII, Constitution of Oregon, a judgment which is such as should have been rendered will he affirmed on appeal, notwithstanding errors, at trial.
    From Multnomah: Calvin U. Gantenbein, Judge.
    Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett.
    This is an action by Harry H. Cloyes and others against Anthon Eckern, to recover $20,000 as commission said to be due them on an alleged contract with the defendant, which they say they performed, to find for him a purchaser, ready, able, and willing to buy 2,000 shares in a lumbering corporation at the price of $200,000. The complaint is traversed in every material particular. A jury trial in the circuit court resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      For appellants there was a brief over the names of Messrs. O’Day & Haddock, with an oral argument by Mr. Thomas O’Day.
    
    For respondents there was a brief over the names of Mr. A. E. Clark and Messrs. Shank & Smith, with oral arguments by Mr. Clark and Mr. Winfield, R. Smith.
    
   Mr. Justice Burnett

delivered the opinion of the court.

The record in this case comes to us containing a bill of exceptions formulated since Section 3, Article VII, Constitution of Oregon, was promulgated in its amended form. Under the sanction of the rule there established, the bill has attached to it the whole testimony, the instructions of the court to the jury, and other matters deemed material to the decision of the appeal.

After careful consideration of all the matters thus submitted and due attention to the arguments of counsel, we are of the opinion, as authorized by that constitutional provision, that the judgment challenged on this appeal is such as should have been rendered in the case, and the same is therefore affirmed, notwithstanding the errors alleged to have been committed during the trial. Wills v. Palmer Lumber Co., 58 Or. 536 (115 Pac. 417) ; Atherton v. Walling, 61 Or. — (121 Pac. 796).

Affirmed.