Legal Opinion
Seekatz v. Foltz
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided February 2, 1926No. 16243PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
FOSTER, O.
The defendant in error was plaintiff and the plaintiff in error was defendant in the trial court, and they will be designated herein as they appeared in that court. The plaintiff filed his amended petition in the court of common pleas of Tulsa county, alleging that there was due him, under the terms of an oral contract between him and the defendant, the sum o" $314.37, being the fair value of certain labor performed and material furnished by him in the construction of improvements upon certain store buildings owned by the defendant. During the trial a further amendment to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Moore v. First Nat. Bank of Iowa CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Oklahoma Portland Cement Co. v. AndersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Tselos v. EvansSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v. PriceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1950
- Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. v. Jamison, Adm'rSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1946
- National Life Accident Ins. Co. v. RobersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Emerson v. PaskerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka R. Co. v. KirkbrideSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936