
    Argued May 7th ;
    decided May 21, 1912.
    WEST v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO.
    [123 Pac. 906.]
    Appeal and Error — Disposition op Cause — Technical Error.
    Under the express provisions of Section 3, Article VII, Constitution of Oregon, as amended by Laws 1911, p. 7, where the bill of exceptions has attached to it the whole testimony, the instructions, and other matters material to the decision of the appeal, if the Supreme Court is of the opinion that the judgment is such as should be rendered, it will be affirmed notwithstanding alleged errors.
    From Union: John W. Knowles, Judge.
    Statement Per Curiam.
    The plaintiff, Maggie A. West, as administratrix of the estate of Herman C. West, deceased, brings this action to recover $2,000 upon a policy issued by the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, June 17, 1905, on the life of the decedent. He died February 3, 1906. Relying upon the admitted warranty of the assured that he would not die by his own act, sane or insane, during the period of one year next following the issuance of the policy, the defendant answered, in substance, that the decedent thus died within the time limit mentioned. A jury trial of the issue joined upon this answer as to the manner of his death resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $93.64, being the amount of premiums paid and interest. From the consequent judgment the plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    For appellant there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Crawford & Eakin, with an oral argument by Mr. Thomas H. Crawford.
    
    For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. Jerry E. Bronaugh, and Messrs. Cochran & Cochran, with an oral argument by Mr. Charles Cochran.
    
   Opinion

Per Curiam.

The record in this case comes to us containing a bill of exceptions formulated since Article VII, Section 3 of the State Constitution, 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 challeged on this appeal is such as should have been rendered in the case, and the same is therefore affirmed, nothwithstanding 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.  