[2-7] The relationship between parties engaged in the common ownership and operation of mining property is somewhat sui generis. Where there is merely a common ownership and no joint development, the relation is, ordinarily, a tenancy in common. Where they join their efforts or means or property in the development of mining property they constitute a "mining partnership." The use of the term "partnership" in this connection is by analogy and is not to be taken as meaning, in all legal respects, the same as an ordinary business or trading partnership. Such a partnership has many of the attributes and limitations of an ordinary partnership but not all such. There are some cardinal differences. Probably, the main differences are that the death or bankruptcy of one such partner does not terminate the partnership and that one partner may convey his interest, or any part thereof, without the consent of his associates and without terminating the partnership and the transferee thereof becomes a partner, to the extent of the interest transferred, from the effective date thereof. Mining partnerships are held, generally, to be applicable to development of oil and gas properties Pennsylvania being the exception. Such relationship in this regard is recognized in Oklahoma. Where a mining partnership exists, each partner is liable to the others for his share (depending upon his interest) of the expenses and losses incurred in the enterprise and there is a lien for such upon his interest in the property or proceeds therefrom in favor of creditors or of other partners who have made advances. Such a partnership may result from express contract or be implied by the conduct of the parties in joining in mining operation on a profit and loss sharing basis or in jointly acquiring mining property for the purpose of joint development and afterwards prosecuting such development or where persons owning a min engage in working it for the purpose of extracting the minerals. Where a mining partnership is in existence, the purchase of an interest of a partner or the purchase of an interest of a partner in the lease being mined makes the purchaser a partner. The power of one such partner to bind the others is strictly limited to acts having a direct connection with the development of the mining venture which is the subject of the partnership. In the footnote are collected numerous cases supporting the above rules and, also, distinguishing mining partnerships

from tenancies in common, agency agreements and hiring contracts.1

1 Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512, 9 S. Ct. 355, 32 L. Ed. 764; Bissell v. Foss, 114 U. S. 252, 5 S. Ct. 851, 29 L. Ed. 126; Kahn v. Central Smelting Co., 102 U. S. 641, 26 L. Ed. 266; Taylor v. Salt Creek Consol. Oil Co., 285 F. 532 (C. C. A. 8th Cir.); Lesamis v. Greenberg, 225 F. 449, 140 C. C. A. 481 (9th Cir.); 74 (9th Cir.); Shea v. Nilima, 133 F. 209, 66 Greenberg v. Lesamis, 203 F. 678, 122 C. C. A. C. C. A. 263 (9th Cir.); G. V. B. Min. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 95 F. 35, 35 C. C. A. 510 (9th Cir.); Thomas v. Hurst, 73 F. 372 (C. C. D. Mo.); Santa Clara Min. Ass'n v. Quicksilver Min. Co., 17 F. 657, 659 (C. C. D. Cal.); Johnstone v. Robinson, 16 F. 903, 905 (C. C. D. Colo.); First Nat. Bank v. Bissell, 4 F. 694 (C. C.

D. Colo.); In re Gladough, 1 Alaska, 649; McMahon v. Meehan, 2 Alaska, 278; Marks v. Gates, 2 Alaska, 519; Elliott v. Elliott, 3 Alaska, 352; McNamee v. Williams, 3 Alaska, 470; Bell v. Wright, 25 Ariz. 97, 213 P. 575; Stone v. Riggs, 163 Ark. 211, 259 S. W. 412; Waring v. Crow, 11 Cal. 366; Gore v. McBrayer, 18 Cal. 582; Skillman v. Lachman, 23 Cal. 198, 83 Am. Dec. 96; Henderson v. Allen, 23 Cal. 519; Duryea v. Burt, 28 Cal. 569 (a leading case); Dougherty v. Creary, 30 Cal. 290, 89 Am. Dec. 116; Settembre v.. Putnam, 30 Cal. 490; Patterson v. Keystone Min. Co., 30 Cal. 360; Jones v. Clark, 42 Cal. 180; Taylor v. Castle, 42 Cal. 367; Decker v. Howell, 42 Cal. stern v. Thrift, 66 Cal. 577, 6 P. 689; Stuart 636; Nisbet v. Nash, 52 Cal. 540; Morganv. Adams, 89 Cal. 367, 26 P. 970; Chung Kee v. Davidson, 102 Cal. 188, 36 P. 519; Berry v. Woodburn, 107 Cal. 504, 40 P. 802; Dellapiazza v. Foley, 112 Cal. 380, 44 P. 727; Dorsey v. Newcomer, 121 Cal. 213, 53 P. 557; Ferris v. Baker, 127 Cal. 520, 59 P. 937; Prince v. Lamb, 128 Cal. 120, 60 P. 689; Frowenfeld v. Hastings, 134 Cal. 128, 66 P. 178; Harper v. Sloan, 177 Cal. 174, 169 P. 1043, 181 P. 775; Lawrence v. Robinson, 4 Colo. 567; Charles v. Eshleman, 5 Colo. 107; Manville v. Parks, 7 Colo. 128, 2 P. 212; Higgins v. Armstrong, 9 Colo. 38, 10 P. 232; Jennings v. Rickard, 10 Colo. 395, 15 P. 677; Meagher v. Reed, 14 Colo. 335, 24 P. 681, 9 L. R. A. 455; Slater v. Haas, 15 Colo. 574, 25 P. 1089, 22 Am. St. Rep. 440; Hurd v. Tomkins, 17 Colo. 394, 30 P. 247; Butler v. Hinckley, 17 Colo. 523, 30 P. 250; Patrick v. Weston, 22 Colo. 45, 43 P. 446; C. D. M. I. Co. v. Bliley, 23 Colo. 160, 46 P. 633; Hodgson v. Fowler, 24 Colo. 278, 50 P. 1034; Taylor v. Thomas, 31 Colo. 15, 71 P. 381; Milliken v. Fredrickson, 73 Colo. 534, 216 P. 714; McLaughlin v. Thompson, 2 Colo. App. 135, 29 P. 816; Perkins v. Peterson, 2 Colo. App. 242, 29 P. 1135; Ashenfelter v. Williams, 7 Colo. App. 332, 43 P. 664; Caley v. Coggswell, 12 Colo. App. 394, 55 P. 939; Lyman v. Schwartz, 13 Colo. App. 318, 57 P. 735; Lamont v. Reynolds, 26 Colo. App. 347, 144 P. 1131; Hawkins v. S. H. Min. Co., 3 Idaho (Hasb.) 241, 28 P. 433; Haskins v. Curran, 4 Idaho, 573, 43 P. 559; Brown v. Bryan, 5 Idaho, 145, 51 P. 995; Hand v. Allen, 294 Ill. 35, 128 N. E. 305; Huston v. Cox, 103 Kan. 73, 172 P. 992; Judge v. Braswell, 13

[8] There is nothing in the nature of a corporate organization, as such, which would prevent it from being a member of a mining partnership or in a joint adventure of that character. Its power in that respect would depend upon its character or organic law. 14a C. J. 291. There is no statute in Oklahoma containing such a prohibition and it seems conceded that the Levant Oil Company was, by its charter, empowered to develop oil and gas lands. While this particular matter is not determined directly in any case of mining partnership brought to our attention, yet there are cases of mining partnerships wherein corporations were partners. Kahn v. Smelting Co., 102 U. S. 641, 26 L. Ed. 266; C. D. M. I. Co. v. Bliley, 23 Colo. 160, 46 P. 683; Hawkins v. Spokane Hydr. Min. Co., 3 Idaho (Hasb.) 241, 28 P. 433; Lind v. Webber, 36 Nev. 623, 134 P. 461, 141 P. 458, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1046, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1202; Kennedy v. Beets Oil Co., 105 Okl. 1, 231 P. 508; and see Anaconda Copper Min. Co. v. B. & B. Min. Co., 17 Mont. 519, 43 P. 924, and Horton v. New Pass G. & S. Min. Co., 21 Nev. 184, 27 P. 376, 1018, which were cases where corporations were sought to be held as partners but the court found, on the facts, that no such relation existed. When it is considered that the transference of an interest of one mining

Bush. (Ky.) 67, 26 Am. Rep. 185; Hamman v. Emerson, 135 La. 629, 65 So. 765; Phillips v. Jones, 20 Mo. 67; Snyder v. Burnham, 77 Mo. 52; Mackie-Clemens Fuel Co. v. Brady, 202 Mo. App. 551, 208 S. W. 151; Freeman v. Hemenway, 75 Mo. App. 611; Dale v. Goldenrod Min. Co., 110 Mo. App. 317, 85 S. W. 929; Nolan v. Lovelock, 1 Mont. 224; Boucher v. Mulverhill, 1 Mont. 306; Southmayd v. Southmayd, 4 Mont. 100, 5 P. 318; Galigher v. Lockhart, 11 Mont. 109, 27 P. 446; Harris v. Lloyd, 11 Mont. 390, 28 P. 736, 28 Am. St. Rep. 475; Anaconda Copper Min. Co. v. Butte & Boston Min. Co., 17 Mont. 519, 43 P. 924; Congdon v. Olds, 18 Mont. 487, 46 P. 261; Horton v. N. P. Gold & Silver Min. Co., 21 Nev. 184, 27 P. 376 and 1018; McKenzie v. Coslett, 28 Nev. 65, 78 P. 976; Lind v. Webber, 36 Nev. 623, 134 P. 461, 135 P. 139, 141 P. 458, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1046, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1202; Dailey v. Fitzgerald, 17 N. M. 137, 125 P. 625, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1187; Ervin v. Masterman, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 516; Gillespie v. Shufflin, 91 Okl. 72, 216 P. 132; Wells v. Shriver, 81 Okl. 108, 197 P. 460, 483; Barrett v. Buchanan, 95 Okl. 262, 213 P. 734; Kennedy v. Beets Oil Co., 105 Okl. 1, 231 P. 508; Watterson v. Reynolds, 95 Pa. 474, 40 Am. Rep. 672; Fulmer's Appeal, 128 Pa. 24, 18 A. 493, 15 Am. St. Rep. 662; Huchinson v. Snider, 137 Pa. 1, 20 A. 510; Dunham v. Loverock, 158 Pa. 197, 27 A. 990, 38 Am. St. Rep. 838; Neill v. Shamburg, 158 Pa. 263, 27 A. 992; B. S. Bank v. Osborne, 159 Pa. 10, 28 A. 163, 39 Am. St. Rep. 665; Taylor v. Fried, 161 Pa. 53, 28 A. 993; Laughner

partner does not terminate the partnership and that such doctrine is founded on the necessity of the case to prevent interference with mining development once begun, we think it would be an unfortunate restraint, both upon the liberty of the partner to dispose of his interest and upon the development of mines, if corporations (having mining powers) could not acquire such interests and join in such character of development. [9] The evidence shows beyond dispute the following facts concerning the lease and operation of these tracts of 40 and of 20 acres. J. H. Dillard and wife gave F. L. Ketch an oil and gas lease on 190 acres, in 1916. The rights, under this lease, in all except 80 acres, were disposed of by Ketch. The Dillard lease was a development lease requiring mining for oil and gas. In 1917, Ketch assigned an undivided half interest in the 80 acres to Wallace. Thereafter, 20 acres out of the 80 acres were disposed of, leaving the 60 acres involved in this action. Thereafter, an undivided interest in 40 acres was assigned to Geo. S. Bole who transferred his assignment to the Skelly Oil Company. This assignment provided for the active development of the property and a sharing of expenses and profits. The Skelly Oil Company proceeded to develop the 40-acre tract, while Ketch and Wallace did the same on the v. Wally, 269 Pa. 5, 112 A. 105; Southern O. & G. Co. v. Mexia, O. & G. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 186 S. W. 446; Roberts v. McKinney (Tex. Civ. App.) 187 S. W. 976; Davis v. Hudgins (Tex. Civ. App.) 225 S. W. 73; Humble O. & R. Co. v. Strauss (Tex. Civ. App.) 243 S. W. 528; Sims v. Humble O. & R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 252 S. W. 1083; Connellee v. Nees (Tex. Civ. App.) 254 S. W, 625; Indiahoma Refin. Co. v. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.) 255 S. W. 212; Mayfield v. Key (Tex. Civ. App.) 260 S. W. 926; Adams v. Texhoma O. & R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 262 S. W. 139; Graham v. Pierce, 19 Grat. (Va.) 28, 100 Am. Dec. 658; Lamar v. Hale, 79 Va. 147; Williamson v. Jones, 43 W. Va. 562, 27 S. E. 411, 38 L. R. A. 694, 64 Am. St. Rep. 891; Childers v. Neely, 47 W. Va. 70, 34 S. E. 828, 49 L. R. A. 468, 81 Am. St. Rep. 777; Blackmarr v. Williamson, 57 W. Va. 249, 50 S. E. 254, 4 Ann. Cas. 265; Kirchner v. Smith, 61 W. Va. 434, 58 S. E. 614, 11 Ann. Cas. 870; Wetzel v. Jones, 75 W. Va. 271, 84 S. E. 951; Hartney v. Gosling, 10 Wyo. 346, 68 P. 1118, 98 Am. St. Rep. 1005; Crawshay v. Maule, 1 Swanst. 518; Fereday v. Wigthwick, 1 Russ. & Myl. 45; Jefferys v. Smith, 17 Eng. Rul. Cas. 835; Martin v. Porter, 17 Eng. Rul. Cas. 841; Norway v. Rowe, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 557; Rule v. Jewell, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 561.

Also, see valuable discussion and notes in 27 Cyc. 755; 18 R. C. L. 1200; 28 Am. St. Rep. 488; 83 Am. Dec. 104; 4 Ann. Cas. 267; 16 Ann. Cas. 304; Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1191; Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1210.

remaining 20-acre tract. Later, A. M. Ketch, wife of F. L. Ketch, acquired a part of and, thereafter, all of the interest of F. L. Ketch in these 60 acres. While she held these interests, she made advances for Wallace in connection with development of the lease. Thereafter, she sold her entire interest to the Levant Oil Company which afterwards made advances for Wallace in connection with the further development of the lease. It is these successive advances by Mrs. Ketch and by the Levant Oil Company which are involved here.

[10] The above facts show a community of interest and action in the development of the entire 60 acres by Wallace with, successively, F. L. Ketch, then F. L. Ketch and Mrs. Ketch, then Mrs. Ketch and finally the Levant Oil Company. They were to share expenditures and profits, in proportion to their respective interests, from such mining operations. This gave rise, under the above rules of law, to a mining partnership which, although its membership changed, never ceased to exist. Such relationship gave each of the partners a right of lien upon the partnership interests of the others for any ad

vancements made on account of the common venture. We think that this lien attached to such partnership interests in the entire 60 acres the entire partnership propertyand the circumstance that an advancement was made in connection with the development of a particular part of the entire tract, when all was being developed, would not confine the lien to such part. When Mrs. Ketch and, later, the Levant Oil Company came into the venture there was an existing mining partnership and it was an interest therein which she purchased and passed on to the company. As said in Kennedy v. Beets Oil Co., 105 Okl. 1, 4, 231 Pac. 508, 511: "When a mining partnership is once created, it continues and is not dissolved by the fact that one of the partners has disposed of his interest to some outside party. What the defendants bought into when they acquired their interests in the lease in question was an undivided interest in a mining partnership and thereby secured the rights and assumed the obligations which the well-established rules governing such partnerships pro

vide."

Therefore, we conclude that Mrs. Ketch and the Levant Oil Company had a lien, for the advances made by each respectively, against the entire interest of Wallace in the 60 acres.

the Levant Oil Company was in connection with operations after the filing of the bankruptcy petition against Wallace. Bankruptcy of a partner does not dissolve a mining partnership. Bissell v. Foss, 114 U. S. 252, 260, 5 S. Ct. 851, 29 L. Ed. 126; Kahn v. Smelting Co., 102 U. S. 641, 646, 26 L. Ed. 266, and numerous other cases cited in the foregoing footnote. There is no reason why such bankruptcy should interfere with the ordinary orderly prosecution of the business of such partnership nor with the rights of the partners inter sese as to the partnership property. The bankruptcy court could demand any profits due the bankrupt because such would be his individual property and it could dispose of the interest of the bankrupt; but it could not assume administration of the partnership business nor interfere therewith except to protect the individual rights of the bankrupt therein. Even in an ordinary business or trading partnership, a bankruptcy court cannot, without consent of the solvent partners, administer on partnership assets or interfere with the partnership affairs where the partnership is not in bankruptcy but only a single partner. Collier on Bankruptcy (13th Ed.) 233-236, and copious notes thereto. The trustee had no legal right, in the beginning, to take control of this purely partnership property. His right was to protect and secure (for the creditors of the bankrupt) the individual property or proceeds due the bankrupt from the partnership. But since he has assumed such control and the other partners, by appearing and asking relief herein, have consented to such jurisdiction and since such jurisdiction can be exercised in a manner which will protect the rights of all parties and secure for the bankrupt estate any value, in the partnership property, belonging to the bankrupt, we see no reason why the court should not act. However, such assumption cannot operate to change the rights of the partners between themselves as to partnership property. Therefore, either as an ad

vancement to a partner or as a payment estate by one having a legal right to make made for the benefit of and to preserve the such payment, the Levant Oil Company is entitled to payment for such advances made after bankruptcy and to its lien for such.

III.

the claimant in the position he would have had if he might have arrested the ship, though he did not. It is quite plain that in some senses the bond is a substitute, not for the vessel, but for the power to arrest. This conflict of thought is made most concrete by supposing that the vessel, after giving the complete statutory futurity bond, is completely lost, after the future obligation accrued, but before any opportunity for actual arrest was waived in reliance on the bond, and before the beginning of any suit against the vessel with notation on the bond as a substitute for arrest. The District Judge assumed that the remedy by suit against the bond would continue, although the ship was out of existence.

We do not see that it is necessary to decide this supposed concrete question; but we think the bond should be read as being consistent with and as furnishing one means of carrying out common and familiar admiralty principles and procedure, rather than as marking a novel and distinct departure therefrom. In 1899 it had long been the established admiralty practice that the first libel filed, and under which arrest was made, became the principal case. Other lien claimants who came along were, in effect, if not in name, intervening libelants. The process is sued for them, to the marshal already in possession of the vessel, was only noted by him. A monition was issued and published, and all lien claimants were invited to intervene and establish their demands. In due time lacking successful defense-a final decree was rendered for condemnation and sale, and distribution of the proceeds was made among the lien claimants who had intervened; those who had not done so lost their lien upon the ship, and had no recourse by way of any lien, unless, under some circumstances, upon the surplus, if there was one. We cannot doubt that the common familiarity with proceedings of this character furnished the background against which the new statute should be seen. Any other resulting situationsthat is, any situation in which, although the ship was sold, there remained a liability on the bond, to be enforced piecemeal by one claimant after another until the statute of limitations should run-must, against this background, be so unnatural it should not be inferred, except from the clearest language in the statute or bond.

We find no such clear language. On the contrary, the theory that the bond is completely and permanently substituted for the ship is inconsistent with the provision that the substitution ends whenever some subsequent suit is commenced, which raises the to

tal claims from 49 per cent. to 51 per cent. of the bond. The only procedural effect of the bond-the stay of process-thereupon ceases. Further, the condition is to answer the decree in any case that may be brought "against the said vessel." It is not natural to think of any procedure in rem "against the vessel" after the vessel has disappeared from actual existence, as by sinking, or from the field of legal liability, as by admiralty sale. The statute further provides that "like remedies" may be had as if the ordinary bond had been filed pursuant to the ordinary libel. As has been pointed out, the customary remedy in such a case involves a monition and the taking of an account of all lien claimants in the same class—all as preliminary to a final decree of sale.

The general principle of equity-and likewise, we take it, of admiralty-that all claims of one class should be treated alike makes it imperative that there should be, under such a bond, some proceeding where all can come in and have their respective rights determined. The principle involved is no different when the bond is ample for all than when it is insufficient; yet, in the latter case, individual recoveries, to the prejudice of unknown claimants, would not be approved in equity.

[1] Further, a study of the precise language of this bond confirms the conclusion that there was no intent to substitute the bond for the ship in a permanent way. The fact was that the receiver, in possession of the ship on behalf of all creditors, was chartering the ship to be taken out of the district and there operated by the charterer. The receiver was bound to protect the charterer from seizure on the existing claims, or else the charter could not be made. To avoid such interference, and to confine the litigation to the occupied forum, were the objects. The bond recites that libels had been, and from time to time may be, filed against the vessel in this district upon existing claims, and that it is desired to avoid delay from such seizures and indemnify the officers for not seizing "under said libels," and the pertinent condition is that the obligor "pay such judgment as shall be awarded in any or every such proceeding or proceedings." There is thus direct reference to the pending proceeding, and we think the natural inference. is that the usual procedure was contemplated, and that only those claims were to be secured which should be materialized by suits brought in rem, while there continued in existence a res subject to such suits.

[2] The theory that the bond is substituted