Case Name: HOY v. GORST
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1916-03-07
Citations: 79 Or. 617
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOY v. GORST.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 617–617

Head Matter:
Argued January 21,
affirmed March 7,
rehearing denied March 28, 1916.
HOY v. GORST.
(151 Pac. 276.)
Appeal and Error — Constitutional Law — Affirmance—Unsubstantial Errors.
1. Under Article VII, Section 3, of the Constitution, requiring affirmance of judgments in law actions notwithstanding errors if the judgment is such as should have been rendered, a judgment in replevin will be affirmed notwithstanding some unsubstantial errors.
From Coos: John S. Coke, Judge.
This is an action in replevin by Harry G. Hoy against V. G. Gorst. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.
For appellant there was a brief over the name of Messrs. Hoy & Miller, with an oral argument by Mr. Harry G. Hoy.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. John D. Goss and Mr. John C. Kendall, with an oral argument by Mr. Goss.
Department 2.

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam.
, This is an action in replevin to recover a Ford machine, called in the complaint an automobile. The evidence shows that plaintiff paid $35 for it, and that it was probably worth $90. There was a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
There are some unsubstantial errors, but from the whole testimony we are satisfied that the verdict and judgment- are such as should have been rendered, and under the provisions of Article VII, Section 3, of the Constitution, are affirmed.
Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.