Cited by

See G. S. 1923, §§ 9280, 9281; Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , ; Briggs v. Rutherford, 94 Minn. 23 , ; Foster v. Gorden, 96 Minn. 142 , ; English v. M. & St.

Kronschnable v. Knoblauch, 21 Minn. 56 ; Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , ; Brandenburg v. Northwestern *382 Jobbers Credit Bureau, 128 Minn. 411 , , L. R. A. 1915D, 474; Wellberg v. Duluth Auto Supply Co. 146 Minn. 29 , ; Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

§ 7672; Wilcox Lumber Co. v. Ritteman, 88 Minn. 18 , ; Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , .

Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , .

Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , .

The amendment may be made after trial, Dougan v. Turner, 51 Minn. 330 , ; even after judgment, Briggs v. Rutherford, 94 Minn. 23 , ; Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , ; Red Lake Falls Milling Co. v. City of Thief River Falls, 109 Minn. 52 , 122 N W. 872, 24 L.R.A.

Kronschnable v. Knoblauch, 21 Minn. 56 ; Kenrick v. Rogers, 26 Minn. 344 , ; Homberger v. Brandenberg, 35 Minn. 401 , ; Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , ; Hogan v. Atlantic Elevator Co. 66 Minn. 344, 349 , .

Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , ; Palmer v. Yorks, 77 Minn. 20 , ; Gilbert v. Boak Fish Co. 86 Minn. 365 , , 58 L.R.A.

Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , ; Wilcox Lumber Co. v. Ritteman, 88 Minn. 18 , ; Kaufman v. Barbour, 103 Minn. 173 , .

Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , .

We discover no error in the refusal to amend the findings, nor in the action of the court directing on its own motion an amendment to the complaint (Briggs v. Rutherford, 94 Minn. 23 , ; Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , ), and no reversible error in any of the other assignments.

Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , ; Board of Co. Commrs.

It clearly appears defendant was not misled or in any way prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and we are of the opinion, as was held in Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , , that it was the duty of the trial court to allow an amendment of the complaint, even after judgment, so as to conform to the facts proved.

The case clearly comes within the decision of this court in Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , .

Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , .

5269; Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , .

If, on the trial, the court had ruled against the plaintiff, and it appeared that the plaintiff had fully introduced its rebutting evidence, without any suggestion that it was taken by surprise, we might have felt at liberty to affirm, and permit defendant to amend his answer nunc pro tunc so as to conform to the evidence, as was done in Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505 , .

Upon the point that a demand on defendant for the grain was necessary, we need only refer to what was said in Adams v. Castle, *349 64 Minn. 505 , .