Biggerstaff

1. Appellant contends the verdict was not sustained by the evidence, because the evidence showed, while the complaint does not allege, that it was part of the agreement between the parties that the axle of the ditching machine.should be shortened, if necessary, so that the wheels should run between the rows of vines. But it was not necessary to allege, as part of the contract, that the machine should be so employed as not to injure defendant’s grapevines. Stipulations necessary to make a contract reasonable are implied: Civ. Code, 1655. “If the parties expressly provide, not anything different, but the very same thing which the law would have implied, this provision may be regarded as having been made twice—by the parties and by the law.....

The expression of those things which the law implies works nothing”: 2 Pars. Cont., side p. 515.

2. Appellant also contends the contract proved differed materially from the contract alleged, in that the evidence shows the contract to have been that the ditch was to be ten inches wide and twenty inches deep, with a concave bottom, suitable for the reception of irrigating pipes, while the complaint alleges the ditches “were to be cut of…