Parrazo v. Women of Woodcraft

123 P. 716, 61 Or. 590, 1912 Ore. LEXIS 97
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided May 21, 1912·Published

Opinion

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.

[592] 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Parrazo v. Women of Woodcraft, 123 P. 716, 61 Or. 590, 1912 Ore. LEXIS 97 (Or. 1912).

123 P. 716 (Parrazo v. Women of Woodcraft) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wills v. Palmer Lumber Co.
115 P. 417 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1911)
Cloyes v. Eckern
121 P. 804 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1912)
Atherton v. Walling
121 P. 796 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1912)