Bolding v. Camp

On Motion for Rehearing.

In a rather vigorous motion the appellant attacks the original opinion, asserting that it is based upon the holding that he was a joint adventurer with the other parties composing the mining partnership engaged in drilling the second well. We possibly erred in not more clearly defining the legal status of appellant and in using the term “joint adventurer,” and the error is made the ground of considerable pointed criticism and vehement argument against the correctness of the opinion. That the parties were engaged in developing a lease, and the further fact that their…