Lucas

A rehearing of this cause was granted principally to give further consideration to the question of' variance between the evidence and the notice of lien as to the-nature of the contract involved.

A portion of the former opinion we adopt as follows:

It is true that the complaint alleges a demand for $780.70, but Mr. Lucas testified that this was the amount' actually due. The testimony also reveals that a mistake of about $19 was made by claimants in their notice, and that they attempted to state therein the amount due after deducting the payments that had been made. But as there is no evidence of fraud, it is unimportant that the complaint is for a small amount less than what is called for in the notice. (Barber v. Reynolds, 44 Cal. 519 ; Malone v. Big Flat Gravel M. Co., 76 Cal. 578 , [ 18 Pac. 772 ]; Harmon v. San Francisco etc. R. R. Co., 86 Cal. 617 , [ 25 Pac. 124 ].) Again, there is no material difference between a statement' of the amount due without setting out the credits and a statement of the whole amount of the debit side of the account and also of the credits. (Star Mill and Lumber Co. v. Porter, 4 Cal. App. 470 , [ 88 Pac. 497 ].)

On the first hearing the second…