Plaintiff’s grantor testified that he never was present when any line was staked out, and never at any time agreed or acquiesced in the line claimed by defendant. [6 Cal.Unrep. 740] Defendant at the time, or about the time, Edward F. Wright was going to sell to plaintiff, said to Charles L. and Edward F. Wright that he would be satisfied with the county surveyor’s survey, and would abide by it. He did not then claim any boundary line, or at least he did not say anything about it in his conversation. When plaintiff was about to buy, he asked defendant about the boundary line, and defendant replied that he did not know where it was; and, when plaintiff told him that he would not buy without a survey, defendant replied: ‘Very well, have a survey made, and I will stand by it; and if it comes my way it will be all right, and if it should go yours, why, I will get more land.’

The services charged for in the second item of the bill of particulars are not strictly within the allegations of the complaint as filed, but they are clearly set forth in the bill of particulars, which, when filed, must be treated as part of the complaint. ( Millet v. Bradbury, 109 Cal. 172, [41 P. 865]; Chapman v. Bent (Cal.), 65 P. 959.) They were thus brought within the issues presented by the complaint read in connection with the bill of particulars.