From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"Coronado sets out to the north" is an oil painting of adventurers setting out on an adventure. Credit: Frederic Remington.{{free media}}

An adventureship is the emotions or conduct of adventurers. It is the state of being adventurers, a relationship between adventurers, a state of mutual trust and support between allied adventurers.


Def. a "way in which two or more people behave and are involved with each other"[1] is called a relationship.

"As this court has noted, there is a "broad spectrum of fiduciary obligations from the case in which a trustee defrauds a child beneficiary or a lawyer defrauds a client or a general partner defrauds a limited partner." Woldman, 92 F.3d at 547 (7th Cir.1996). For example, a joint venture between equals will not qualify as a fiduciary relationship." In re Frain, 230 F. 3d 1014 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2000.


Laura Bingham is photographed whilst on her journey across South America. Credit: Laurabingham1.{{free media}}


  1. an "encountering of risks; hazardous and striking enterprise; a bold undertaking, in which hazards are to be encountered, and the issue is staked upon unforeseen events; a daring feat"[2]
  2. a "remarkable occurrence; a striking event; a stirring incident; as, the adventures of one's life"[2]
  3. a "mercantile or speculative enterprise of hazard; a venture; a shipment by a merchant on his own account"[2] is called an adventure.

Theoretical adventureships[edit]

Def. "one who seeks [...] fortune in new and hazardous or perilous enterprises"[3] is called an adventurer.

Def. a woman who seeks or enjoys adventure is called an adventuress.

"European adventurers found themselves within a watery world, a tapestry of streams, channels, wetlands, lakes and lush riparian meadows enriched by floodwaters from the Mississippi River."[4]


Def. someone "who is associated with another in a common activity or interest"[5] is called a partner.

In the case of "SPRUIELL v. STANFORD et al." before the Supreme Court of Alabama on December 4, 1952, was a bill "in equity by a tenant in common to sell lands for division, with answer and cross bill by defendants for specific performance and to declare the interests in the land."[6]

Involved were "three separately described tracts of land in Lamar County, which for convenience will be designated (1) the home place, containing eighty-seven and one-half acres; (2) the Kentucky Land Company forty acres; and (3) the Sorrell tract, containing about sixty acres. There was the customary allegation that the lands could not be equitably divided in kind and a prayer for a sale for division."[6]

And, the terms of the contract needed to be clarified: "the allegations that there existed a joint adventure between the parties whereby they agreed to operate the home place, pay the then existing debts outstanding against it, and each of the parties to receive a one-third portion of the net income produced therefrom. It was further alleged that with an accumulation of partnership funds, appellant and appellees purchased the Kentucky Land Company forty acres and the Sorrell tract, but that the deeds of conveyance of these acquisitions were taken in the name of defendant [..]. On the basis of these allegations, the bill prayed for a reformation of the land deeds to the two latter tracts of land so as to vest in each of the parties a one-third undivided interest therein, and for a sale for division of all the tracts, and for an accounting between appellant and appellees of the joint adventureship."[6]

"With respect to the home place, the answer and cross bill affirmed the existence of an agreement of joint adventure between the parties, but alleged that the agreement was that after the existing debts were paid and the indebtedness of the deceased brother, [...], who owned the other one-third interest in the home place, shall have been paid, each of the parties was to share one-third each in the title to the property. The cross bill alleged, in substance, that in December, 1932, [at which time] the complainant [...] importuned [the defendant] to make his domicile on the home place, explaining to him the situation in regard to the indebtednesses against the property and owing by their deceased brother [...] and that they agreed with him that if he would make his domicile on the premises and manage and cultivate the land and pay the said existing debts, that "the interest of said [deceased brother] would be procured from the legal heirs of said [deceased brother] other than complainant [...] and defendant [...] and that the title to said land would be vested in the three of them in equal shares, and that they would all live together, operate the farm as a joint venture and share the income therefrom in equal shares; that the defendant [...] thereupon agreed to enter into such an agreement and did make his domicile on said premises and assumed the management and control thereof, cultivating the land, marketing the crops and generally supervising same", etc. The cross bill then alleged that by his management and individual effort, he succeeded in paying off the mortgage on the land and the debts left owing by the deceased brother [...]; that he improved the premises, erected new buildings, repaired old ones, and built fences and cleared and put into cultivation new ground; and in contravention of the said agreement of December, 1932, the complainant [...] without notice to him, did, on to wit, April 6, 1950, procure from the heirs at law of the said [deceased brother] the said deceased brother's one-third undivided interest in the home place, whereas the deed should have been made to [the defendant]; wherefore, the cross bill prayed that the deed should be reformed so that the one-third interest thus acquired by [the complainant] be decreed in him, [the defendant]."[6]

"With respect to the Kentucky Land Company forty acres and the Sorrell sixty acres, the cross bill denied the allegations of the original bill and claimed that [the defendant] had bought the two tracts himself with his own funds and was rightfully the owner of the full title to each of the tracts."[6]

"The decree, inter alia, granted the relief prayed for in the cross bill as regards the home place and vested a one-third undivided interest in each of the parties, sustained the answer to the original bill with respect to the Kentucky Land Company forty acres affirming the full title in [the defendant], and granted the relief prayed for in the original bill with respect to the Sorrell sixty acres and decreed that each of the parties was entitled to an undivided one-third interest therein. The assignments of error are directed to the features of the decree relating to these tracts of land."[6]

Appellant testified, "He said he wanted to buy it and I said we would help him buy it and give him the deed to it as we already had eighty acres, and he had no part in that, and he could have the deed with the understanding we'd all have the benefit of wood and timber on it." "Our view is, appellant has failed to establish any right to or interest in the Kentucky Land Company forty acres."[6]

"Title to [The Sorrell Sixty Acres] was also taken in the name of [the defendant], but the trial court found that partnership funds had been used in the purchase of the same under an agreement that each of the parties should own an undivided one-third interest therein, and decreed accordingly."[6]


  1. An adventureship is the most open type of contract. Each party brings to it whatever they want and takes out of it whatever they can without fiscally hurting the other adventurers.

See also[edit]


  1. Cloudhorizon (11 September 2012). relationship. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 7 April 2017.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 adventure. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 6 June 2014. Retrieved 2014-06-09.
  3. adventurer. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 23 May 2014. Retrieved 2014-06-09.
  4. Nancy Langston (January 1, 2013). "The Fraught History of a Watery World". American Scientist 101 (1): 59. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-fraught-history-of-a-watery-world. Retrieved 2014-06-09. 
  5. SemperBlotto (2 August 2005). partner. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2017-04-07.
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 Simpson (4 December 1952). "SPRUIELL v. STANFORD et al.". South District of Alabama 61 (2d): 758-764. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=115320044134175500&hl=en&oe=ASCII&as_sdt=806. Retrieved 2018-5-21. 

External links[edit]

{{Anthropology resources}}{{Economics resources}}{{Humanities resources}}

{{Semantics resources}}