Mining Partnerships—Actual Joint Working Essential to.—The actual working of a mine by the owners for their mutual benefit, is essential to the existence of a partnership relation, the parties to contribute to the extent of the work and to share in the profits according to their respective interests.

Id.—Contracts—When Mining Partnership not Shown.—A mining partnership is not constituted by an agreement between an attorney and his client that the former should sell certain mining properties of which he held the title in trust for both, and from the purchase price, from time to time, deduct a sum sufficient to repay him all sums put out for the benefit of the properties and to compensate him for his legal services, and after such repayment, and the payment of the expense of the sales, the sums remaining to be divided equally between the parties, and any remaining property to be held in joint ownership.

Id.—When Party not Liable for Labor.—In such a case, where the agreement did not contemplate a joint working of the mines by the parties to the contract, but by its terms the -attorney was in sole charge of the property, and whatever work was provided to be done by it was to be done by the attorney and no money was to be advanced by the other party, the attorney was not liable for services performed by a party on the mine who was employed by the other party to the contract.

Id.—Attachment—Insufficient Affidavit for.—An affidavit for an attachment which states “that the said attachment is not sought ... to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor or creditors of the defendant,” is insufficient, where there are three defendants, as it only refers to one defendant, which does not meet the requirements of section 538 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such an affidavit might have been amended upon motion at or before the hearing of an application to discharge the attachment, but where no application was made the attachment should have been discharged.