By agreement of all parties, the appellant has been permitted to file new-briefs, and the case is now before us for determination upon the merits. The record contains no copy of any of the pleadings, and the controversy is submitted by a brief statement of the case under R. S. art. 2280. The substance of the statement is that the appellant Bolding was one of the defendants in a consolidated cause upon the docket of the district court of Wichita county. The court consolidated several cases, filed by different plaintiffs, against the same defendants, among them being W. P. Bolding, appellant, A. J. McNeese, and A. L. Wiley. The statement further recites that the pleadings were sufficient, that the plaintiffs alleged that the various defendants were partners, owning, and engaged in the development of, a particular mineral lease, and, as such partners, were indebted to each plaintiff in various amounts for labor or material furnished to said lease. In addition to said averments, plaintiffs M. S. and L. I. Bennett pleaded in-the alternative that, if the several defendants were not general partners, then as joint owners of said lease, engaged in the joint enterprise of developing the same, they were mining partners, and each knew of the necessity for, and the fact of, such plaintiffs’ furnishing to said lease fuel oil necessary for, and used in the furtherance of, such joint enterprise, in developing said lease.
The appellant, Bolding, answering each of the several demands thus made against him, seasonably filed sworn denial of any partnership between him and any of his codefend-ants, and denied liability in any amount sued upon; that plaintiffs and interveners below established by appropriate evidence that the respective amounts allowed each of them in the judgment below was due and owing for work, supplies, materials, improvements, and labor furnished by them,, respectively, on the lease in question.
It is further agreed that the sole question-on this appeal is the liability of the said W. P. Bolding to the several appellees herein, and such liability, if any, rests alone upon whether or not, under the proof made, he was a partner with McNeese, Wiley, and his other codefendants, and, in the case of the Bennetts, whether or not Bolding was a mining partner with his codefendants, if not a general partner; and it is further agreed that, if such proof was insufficient, the judgment should be reversed as to all of the ap-pellees; otherwise it should be affirmed as to all.
The material facts stated are as follows:
(a) That in January, 1924, the appellant Bolding paid McNeese and Wiley the sum of $600 in cash, receiving in return a letter evidencing that he (Bolding) was the owner of a one-sixteenth interest in a certain 15-acre mineral lease, with a well thereon; that the lease referred to in said letter was the same lease on behalf of which all of the debts sued on were incurred in drilling the second well, which was drilled after the completion of the first well.
■ (b) That at all times McNeese and Wiley alone were in active charge of the development of said lease, and alone directed and supervised all of the work and development thereon, and alone purchased the materials by reason of which the debts herein sued on were incurred.
(c) That, during the drilling of said second well on the lease in question, the appellant, Bolding, on two different occasions, at night, was seen on said lease and at said well; that, at the time of the completion of said second well, M. S. Bennett of the K. M. A. Fuel Oil Company had a telephone conversation with appellant in regard to her debt against the lease in question, in which conversation Bolding was asked if he was interested in the company developing said lease, and he said that he was. When he was informed that the bills were not being paid promptly, he stated that he had paid in his interest, and that he did not have anything to do with the management of the lease. When informed that some money would have to be paid on the Bennett account, he stated that he would speak to Wiley about it. Mr. Frances, representing one of the plaintiffs, also had some conversation with appellant, in which appellant stated to Frances that he had an interest in said lease, and that his interest was paid for, and that Wiley and Mc-Neese would pay the account, and that he would see them about paying it.
It is further agreed that no plaintiff below pleaded that credit was advanced by reason of any knowledge that Bolding was interested therein, nor was there any pleading that Bolding held himself out as a partner.
Judgment was rendered that some of the plaintiffs take nothing, and in favor of other plaintiffs, for the several sums claimed, against Wiley, A. J. McNeese, Mrs. Theo. Mc-Neese, W. B. Baldwin, and W. R. Bolding, as partners. W. P. Bolding alone has appealed.
In accordance with the agreement, the sole question to be decided is whether the appellant, under the statement, was' properly held liable asi a partner for the several amounts adjudged against him.
*1118Our conclusion is that he was either a partner or a joint adventurer, and, in either event under the agreed statement, the judgment should be affirmed, because in either event the'liability of appellant in a case of this character would' be the same. Griffin v. Reilly (Tex. Civ. App.) 275 S. W. 242; Finney v. Terrell (Tex. Civ. App.) 276 S. W. 340. There being no express agreement for the formation of a partnership between appellant and his codefendants, it became a question of fact to be determined by the trial judge from all the circumstances, and we think the facts disclosed by the agreed ease amply support the trial court in concluding that there was a mining partnership between appellant and his codefendants. When appellant bought his one-sixteenth interest in the adventure, it was for the purpose of sharing proportionately in the profits, if any, to be derived therefrom, and, while he may have had an understanding with his codefendants that they should bear the expenses incident to the drilling of the second well, this would not affect his liability to the creditors, in the absence of any agreement with them that appellant was not to be held liable beyond the $600 contributed by him. While the facts set forth in the agreed statement are meager, they are sufficient to support the court’s finding upon the issue of the existence of a mining partnership. Mayfield v. Key (Tex. Civ. App.) 260 S. W. 926; Munsey v. Mills & Garitty, 115 Tex. 469, 283 S. W. 754; Indiahoma Refining Co. v. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.) 255 S. W. 212. While the general rule is that one member of a mining partnership is not liable upon a debt for money borrowed by any other member of the partnership, the rule is equally well established that all members of a mining partnership, joint adventure or joint-stock association and business trust, engaged in mining, are liable as partners (in the absence of a special agreement with creditors exempting them) for all indebtedness incurred for necessaries either in the way of materials or labor furnished for the prosecution of the work. Harvey Co., Ltd. v. Braden (Tex. Civ. App.) 260 S. W. 655; Indiahoma Ref. Co. v. Wood, supra; Thornton’s Oil & Gas Law (4th Ed.) § 363; Hollister v. McCamey, 115 Tex. 49, 274 S. W. 562; Victor Ref. Co. v. City Nat. Bank (Tex. Sup.) 274 S. W. 561; Continental Supply Co. v. Adams (Tex. Civ. App.) 272 S. W. 325.
It appears from the agreed statement that the plaintiff’s claims in the instant case are for material, machinery, fuel oil, and labor, actually furnished by the several creditors and used by McNeese and Wiley in drilling the second well. During the prosecution of the work appellant visited the site of the well, and must be held to have known that such expenditures were being made and that they were necessary. Under the agreed statement that the pleadings were sufficient, We must presume, in support of the judgment, that plaintiff pleaded these facts by way of estoppel. He therefore tacitly agreed to all that was being done in and about the prosecution of the work, and is therefore es-topped to deny liability. Thompson v. Schmitt, 115 Tex. 53, 274 S. W. 560; Continental Supply Co. v. Adams (Tex. Civ. App.), 272 S. W. 325; Roberts v. McKinney (Tex. Civ. App.) 187 S. W. 976; and authorities, supra.
The judgment is affirmed.