A contract to locate mining claims and divide the profits therefrom illustrates the diversity of judicial opinion as to partnership contracts for dealing in realty; being held in some jurisdictions to be within the statute of frauds1 and in others

12Raub v. Smith, 61 Mich. 543; 1 Am. St. Rep. 619; 28 N. W. 676.

13 Seymour v. Cushway, 100 Wis. 580; 69 Am. St. Rep. 957; 76 N. W. 769; McMillen v. Pratt, 89 Wis. 612; 62 N. W. 588; Clarke v. Mc-Auliffe, 81 Wis. 104; 51 N. W. 83; Bird v. Morrison, 12 Wis. 138. To the same effect see Smith v. Burn-ham, 3 Sumner (U. S.) 435; Ever-hart's Appeal. 106 Pa, St. 349.

14 See Sec. 662.

15 Goldstein v. Nathan. 158 111. 641: 42 X. E. 72; affirming 57 111. App. 389. (A contract by two owners of land in severalty, bought with their several funds, to form a partnership for the sale of such lands and a division of the profits therefrom.) Carothers v. Alexander, 74 Tex. 309; 12 S. W. 4; and see to the same effect. Groome's Estate, 94 Cal. 69; 29 Pac. 487.

1 Gray v. Smith. L. R. 43 Ch. D. 208; Carothers v. Alexander. 74 Tex. 309; 12 S. W. 4; Brewer v. Cropp. 10 Wash. 136; 38 Pac. 866.

2 Marsh v. Davis, 33 Kan. 326; 6 Pac. 612.

1Craw v. Wilson. 22 Nev. 385; 40 not.2 If there was no prior contract for locating such claims for the joint benefit of the parties to the contract, a contract after location, whereby the locator transfers his right to another in whole or in part, is within the statute.3