Stitzinger

Plaintiff recovered judgment for $5,750 for the construction of an oil well derrick. Two only of the defendants appeal—Miller and Ragos. They were personally served "with summons. The points raised by these appellants are in general that the facts surrounding the making of the contract for the erection of the derrick were such and the nature of the written articles forming the syndicate was such that no personal judgment should have been given against them.

The amended complaint alleges that the syndicate is a business trust. The joint answer of these appellants and the syndicate is equivocal, denying that the syndicate is other than the articles constitute it. The court finds that defend ants Truitt, Miller, and Ragos organized the syndicate “which was purported to be a trust but which was in truth and in fact a copartnership of which the said three named defendants were the copartners.”

Other findings of the court follow: That the articles provided that the business and property of the syndicate should be managed by a board of three trustees. That Miller, Ragos, and Truitt, each owner and holder of two units or shares in the syndicate, were elected trustees and they were…