The facts as disclosed by the record substantially support this conclusion. In Henry v. Gulf Coast Drilling Co., 56 Okla. 604, 156 P. 321, it is said: "The motion to separately state and number is a matter largely in the sound discretion of the court.

other case, Swarts v. State, supra, was an action against a court clerk and the sureties on his official bond for alleged failure to account for and pay over certain sums collected at various times from divers sources, and it was there held that the motion to make the petition more definite and certain so as to allege the names of the persons from whom the money had been collected, in what cases such funds had been collected and retained, and to whom the funds belonged, should have been sustained, the court being of the opinion that the complaining party had been prejudiced by the action and ruling of the trial court in that the defendants were not in position to fully prepare for a proper trial of the case. The defendant's motion to make the petition more definite and certain in the instant case is of itself somewhat indefinite and broad in that it merely moves the court to require the plaintiff to make her petition more definite and certain by alleging facts instead of conclusions (Henry v. Gulf Coast Drilling Co., 56 Okla. 604, 156 P. 321), but it apparently was directed chiefly at the failure to allege wherein the elevator referred to was not equipped with proper guards. No evidence was admitted as to any guards required by order of the State Factory Inspector, and as to the allegation on that point in the petition it became immaterial. It would have been better pleading, we think, to have alleged to some extent the nature of the guards referred to in the allegations of the petition, but failure of the court to sustain the motion, considering it as applicable and directed at specific allegations, or to all allegations in the petition based on conclusion, did not, as we view it, from all consideration of the record, materially prejudice the rights of the defendant or prevent it from properly presenting its defense in the action.

Pleadings should be liberally construed. (C. S., sec. 6707; The Mode, Ltd, v. Myers, 30 Idaho 159, 164 P. 91; McCormack v. Smith, 23 Idaho 487, 130 P. 999; Miller v. Howard, 95 Or. 426, 188 P. 160; Chickasha Gas Electric Co. v. Linn, 80 Okl. 233, 195 P. 769; Decker v. Decker, 56 Mont. 338, 185 Pac. 168; Henry v. Gulf Coast Drilling Co., 56 Okl. 604, 156 Pac. 321; San Gabriel Valley Bank v. Lakeview Town Co., 4 Cal.App. 630, 89 P. 360; Hutchings v. Ebeler, 46 Cal. 557; Tietke v. Forrest, 64 Cal.App. 364, 221 P. 681.) JOHNSON, Commissioner.

Several decisions by this court are also cited by plaintiff in support of the proposition that the overruling of a demurrer to a petition is not error where the allegations of the petition, by any fair interpretation, state a cause of action against the demurrant. Illustrative of the cases relied upon is the third paragraph of the syllabus in Henry v. Gulf Coast Drilling Co., 56 Okla. 604, 156 P. 321, quoted in plaintiff's brief as follows: "It is not error to overrule a demurrer where the allegations of the petition, construed most favorably to the pleader, set up a cause of action."

It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that the allegations of a petition challenged by a general demurrer or objection to the introduction of evidence, based upon the insufficiency of the petition, must be construed liberally in favor of the pleader. Blasdel v. Gower, 70 Okla. 178, 173 P. 644; Henry v. Gulf Coast Drilling Co., 56 Okla. 604, 156 P. 321. The allegations in plaintiff's petition were sufficient to appraise defendant of the full name and amount of plaintiff's claim.

"It is not error to overrule a demurrer" to the petition "where the allegations to the petition, construed most favorably to the pleader, set up a cause of action." Henry v. Gulf Coast Drilling Co., 56 Okla. 604, 156 P. 321. We have carefully considered the evidence in this case, and are of the opinion that, though in conflict, there is sufficient evidence reasonably establishing that a conspiracy was entered into on the part of all of the defendants to defraud the plaintiff, and to sustain all of the other material allegations of the petition, and that therefore the insistence of the appealing defendants that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence is without merit.