In Ogden v. United Bank & Trust Co. (1929) 206 Cal. 571, the contract was for the plaintiff to perform farming work on certain land. When the individuals did not pay the plaintiff for his work, he went to the bank and spoke to an officer of the bank. The plaintiff insisted that "unless the bank would pay for the work done and would be paymaster, he was through and would do no further work." (Id. at p. 573.) The plaintiff was paid and an officer of the bank told him to continue to work. On appeal the defendant agued that there was a material variance between the agreement pleaded in the complaint and the agreement proved. Specifically, while the contract alleged what was between the plaintiff and two individual defendants, the proof established an obligation on the part of the bank to pay the plaintiff. (Ibid.) Under these circumstances, the court held that "any variance did not mislead defendants to their prejudice and hence cannot be held to be material." (Id. at p. 575.)