
    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

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.  