In its second proposition and the argument thereunder, defendant complains of alleged error in the trial court's instructions numbered three and five, in which (along with its instruction numbered four) said Court submitted to the jury the question of the insured's fraud in making the above-described statements on his application for the policy. In view of what we have said with reference to such fraud not being a valid defense in this case, it is unnecessary to deal with defendant's contentions concerning these instructions other than to say that they were more favorable to defendant than it was entitled to. See Pact Gas Co. v. Baker, 203 Okla. 124, 218 P.2d 912. As we have found in neither of the propositions urged therefor, any cause for reversal of the trial court's judgment, the same is hereby affirmed; and, pursuant to plaintiff's request therefor, said court is directed to also render judgment against the surety on defendant's supersedeas bond if said judgment is not satisfied in conformity with the obligations specified in said bond.