Minnesota Supreme Court, 1902

Wilcox Lumber Co. v. Ritteman

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 5, 1902 · Collins

88 Minn. 18; 92 N.W. 472; 1902 Minn. LEXIS 683 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

F. H. Peterson, for appellant., O. A. Nye, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1926, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Christianson v. National Citizens Bank (Minn. 1926)
Timm v. Aiton (Minn. 1921)
O'Brien v. Northwestern Consolidated Milling Co. (Minn. 1912)
Johnson v. Scott (Minn. 1912)
Larson v. Barlow (Minn. 1910)
Kaufman v. Barbour (Minn. 1908)
Deitsch v. George R. Gibson Co. (8th Cir. 1907)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

COLLINS, J.

In an action brought to enforce a materialman’s lien upon real property, the court below, trying the case without a jury, made findings of fact and ordered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Subsequently, upon defendant’s motion for a new trial, the court granted the same, whereupon plaintiff appealed.

*19It was averred in the complaint that the materials were furnished under and by virtue of an oral agreement between plaintiff and defendant, and the court found as a fact that they were furnished by plaintiff for defendant at the -latter’s special instance and request, and as alleged in the complaint. The order for a new trial was in express terms based upon what the court below conceived to be error

“In allowing evidence to be introduced to prove an implied agreement, or any other than an express agreement as alleged in the complaint.”

Or, to phrase it differently, the court was of the opinion that because of this assumed error there was a material and prejudicial variance between the allegation in the complaint and the evidence at the trial. We do not concur in this opinion. If there was a variance between pleading and proof in this case, it was harmless, and should have been entirely disregarded.

By virtue of G. S. 1894, §§ 5262, 5263, it is evident that there must be not only a material variance between the allegation in the pleading and the proof, but the fact that the adverse party has been misled, and in what respect must be proved aliunde. The substance of the decisions in this state is well stated thus:

“When the disagreement between the facts alleged and the facts proved or sought to be proved is so slight that it is perfectly obvious that the adverse party could not have been misled in his preparation for trial, the variance is deemed immaterial, and the court will either disregard it altogether, .or order an immediate amendment without costs.” Bunnell, Minn. PI. § 672. -

From an examination of the answer it is plain that the defendant was not misled by a variance, if any there was, and this view is confirmed by an examination of the testimony produced at the trial.

Order reversed, and upon remittitur judgment will be entered upon the verdict.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.