Gelwicks v. Homan

I doubt whether this transaction can properly be treated as a joint adventure for the simple reason that it was not formed for the purpose of profit, (see Springston v. Powell, 113 W. Va. 638, 169 S. E. 459) but simply for the purpose of seeing that the additional stock of The First National Bank of Keyser was properly distributed to “those parties” who would add to the stability of all of the stockholders, and, perhaps incidentally, not be hypercritical of the existing officers and board of directors. There being no pecuniary profit, involved, I believe the joint understanding by the…