Case ID: or_61/html/0590-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued May 8,
    decided May 21, 1912.
    PARRAZO v. WOMEN OF WOODCRAFT.
    [123 Pac. 716.]
    Appeal and Error — Review—Harmless Error.
    Under the direct provisions of Section 3, Article VII, Constitution of Oregon, as amended by Laws 1911, p. 7, a judgment, which apears to be such as should have been rendered in view of the entire record, will be affirmed, though errors appear therein.
    From Umatilla: Gilbert W. Phelps, Judge.
    Statement Per Curiam.
    This is an action by Joseph Parrazo and Louise Van Orsdall, as administratrix of the estate of Mary Parrazo, deceased, against the Women of Woodcraft.
    
      The defendant is an incorporated beneficial order operating for life insurance purposes on the lodge plan. Claiming that Josephine Woodall died a member of the order in good standing entitling her beneficiaries to $1,000, the latter commenced this action to recover the amount of the insurance stipulated. In the application of the decedent for membership was a condition to the effect that, if any of her statements or declarations therein should be found to be untrue in any respect, the order would not be liable to the beneficiaries on account of her death. In answer to the question on the application blank, “Give name and address of your usual medical attendant,” she had written, “C. J. Smith, Pendleton, Oregon.” Contending that this statement was untrue, the defendant by appropriate pleading resisted payment as upon a breach of warranty by the assured. Issue was joined on this defense as to the truth or falsity of that response to the question quoted, and a jury trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    For appellant there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Raley & Raley, with an oral argument by Mr. James H. Raley.
    
    For respondent there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Fee & Slater, with an oral argument by Mr. Robert J. Slater.
    
   Opinion

Per Curiam.

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. Laws 1911, p. 7. 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. 384 (121 Pac. 796) ; Cloyes v. Eckern, 61 Or. 181 (121 Pac. 804). Affirmed.