Court Opinion

ID: 9734855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:48:18.878147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:51.671863
License: Public Domain

BISHOP, J. pro tem.*
I concur, but wish to add that plaintiff’s claim was for services rendered the decedent from October 1, 1950, until her death, at her request and upon her promise to provide for plaintiff in her will. The trial court found accordingly. The circumstance that in her complaint the plaintiff had alleged that the promise was made in October, 1954, may not be made use of to defeat the judgment in this appeal on a clerk’s transcript. A variance between pleading and proof is not fatal unless the defendant was “actually misled” to her prejudice. (Code Civ. Proc., §§469, 470.) “Furthermore, the point of alleged variance, not having been raised at the hearing, was waived.” (Colbert v. Colbert, 28 Cal.2d. 276, 281 [169 P.2d 633, 638].) And in the absence of the record of the oral proceedings, we presume that there was no objection made. (Abner Doble Co. v. Keystone Consolidated Min. Co. (1904), 145 Cal. 490, 494-495 [78 P. 1050, 1051-1052].)
A petition for a rehearing was denied January 19, 1960, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 24, 1960.

 Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.