Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Seybold

The defendant in error was the plaintiff in the trial court, and the plaintiff in error was the defendant therein.. The plaintiff filed in the district court of Tulsa county, Okla., a petition with an itemized statement of ácco'unt attached thereto, in which he alleged that the' defendant was indebted to him in 'the sum of $2,816.40 “for and on account of work and labor, building tank grades, road work, furnishing men, teams and tools therefor, and extra men.” Thereafter he amended the petition to show the amount claimed to be $2,744.50. The verified answer thereto consisted of a denial and…