48 C.J.S. Joint Adventure § 2. Cf. Tulsa County Truck Fruit G. Ass'n v. McMurphey, 185 Okla. 132, 90 P.2d 927 (1939); Albina Engine And Machine Works, Inc. v. Abel, 305 F.2d 77 (Tenth Cir. 1962). The rule respecting partnerships is similar. It is essential to the partnership relationship that the parties share both in the profits and losses of the enterprise.

The project was entirely charitable and performed without compensation, other than possible favorable publicity. It is elementary that agreement, express or implied, to share in profits of an undertaking is essential to existence of a joint adventure. Commercial Lumber Co. v. Nelson, 181 Okla. 122, 72 P.2d 829; Tulsa County Fruit Truck Growers Assn. v. McMurphy, 185 Okla. 132, 90 P.2d 927; and E.D. Bedwell Coal Co. v. State Industrial Comm., 157 Okla. 227, 11 P.2d 527. No evidence shows a profit was contemplated or received. Nor can this contract be supported by a claimed consideration based upon mutual promises of respondents.

'" In Tulsa County Truck Fruit G. Ass'n v. McMurphey, 185 Okl. 132, 90 P.2d 927-929 (1939), the Supreme Court of Oklahoma stated: "* * * However, in order to support a verdict for the plaintiff, circumstantial evidence must be sufficient to render the fact or conclusion sought to be established more probable than one or more other conclusions which would be inconsistent with liability. Wigmore on Evidence, Second Edition, vol. 1, page 253. Otherwise the decision would be said to rest on speculation and conjecture.

Considering all of the evidence as to such matters, and the further fact that Wix had not yet "checked in" with the Company off the Abilene trip, nor in any other formal, bilateral, or contractual manner terminated his engagement for National under the parties' contract, we think the evidence as a whole was sufficient to go to the jury for determination of the question as to whether or not, at the time of the accident, Wix was the agent, and still employed in business, of National, as comprehended in the parties' agreement and in the foregoing cases. (In this connection, notice Duke v. Thomas (Mo. App.), 343 S.W.2d 636, Cook v. Knox, Okla., 273 P.2d 865, 869, and 35 Am. Jur., "Master Servant", sections 553, 555 and 559, both inclusive and the Annotations at 52 A.L.R.2d 350, and 122 A.L.R. 858). This cause is readily distinguishable from Tulsa County Truck Fruit Growers Ass'n v. McMurphey, 185 Okla. 132, 90 P.2d 927, where the driver undertook the hauling "on his own initiative and without previous direction by the association or any of its officers." In part of its instruction No. 14, the trial judge told the jury:

The interval of time between the accident and the time when he was seen near the road was so great that such a conclusion would be speculative and conjectural. In Tulsa County Truck Fruit Growers Ass'n v. McMurphey, 185 Okla. 132, 90 P.2d 927, 929, we said: "However, in order to support a verdict for the plaintiff, circumstantial evidence must be sufficient to render the fact or conclusion sought to be established more probable than one or more other conclusions which would be inconsistent with liability."

48 C.J.S., Joint Adventures, p. 809, sec. 2. Tulsa County Truck Fruit G. Asso. v. McMurphey (1939), 185 Okla. 132, 90 P.2d 927. Another essential is the participants have joint control and the right to control the operation involved in the enterprise jointly undertaken. "Essentially there is little difference between a partnership and a joint adventure, the latter, as a rule, being more limited and confined in its scope principally to a single transaction." Barry v. Kern (1924), 184 Wis. 266, 268, 199 N.W. 77; Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Parker (1954), 266 Wis. 179, 63 N.W.2d 101.

A possible cause cannot be accepted by a jury as the operating cause unless the evidence excludes all others or shows something in the way of direct connection with the occurrence. 20 Am.Jur. (Evid.), P. 1028, Sec. 1178; Hubbert v. Aztec Brewing Co., 26 Cal.App.2d 664, 80 P.2d 185, at page 197; Sweeney v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 30 Cal.App.2d Supp. 767, 92 P.2d 1043, at page 1046; Reese v. Smith, 9 Cal.2d 324, 70 P.2d 933; Mackey v. Jarvis, 180 Okla. 404, 69 P.2d 662, at page 663; Tulsa County Truck Fruit Growers Ass'n v. McMurphey, 185 Okla. 132, 90 P.2d 927, at page 929; Vale v. State Industrial Accident Comm., 160 Or. 569, 86 P.2d 956, at page 959; Poland v. City of Seattle, 200 Wn. 208, 93 P.2d 379, at page 383; McMaster v. Warner, 44 Idaho 544, at page 552, 258 P. 547; Hargis v. Paulsen Poulson, 30 Idaho 571, at page 575, 166 P. 264; Showalter v. Western Pac. R. Co., Cal., 106 P.2d 895, at page 904; 1 Shearman Redfield Negligence (Rev.Ed.) Par. 46, p. 121. A municipality is not liable because of granting a permit to install a butane tank; the installation and operation of which is not in itself dangerous, but, which could become dangerous only when negligently operated by the persons using the same; a municipality is not required to anticipate such negligence on the part of operators. 38 Am.Jur. (Mun.Corp.)

Where the evidence is in conflict, the issue of agency is a fact question for the jury's determination and must be established as other facts necessary to be proved. Tulsa County Truck and Fruit Growers Ass'n v. McMurphey, 185 Okla. 132, 90 P.2d 927. The issue as to the existence of contributory negligence was submitted to the jury for consideration under the trial court's instructions.

The argument loses sight of the fact the joint adventure must be predicated upon the contract of the parties (McKeel v. Mercer, 118 Okla. 66, 246 P. 619); that parties are at liberty to agree upon a condition precedent upon which their liability shall depend (12 Am. Jur. 849, § 296); and that if it be true the condition in this case was a condition precedent to plaintiff's right to share in the profits, it not only precludes the idea of a fortfeiture but negatives the existence of a joint adventure by excluding the existence of a right to joint profits which is essential thereto. E. D. Bedwell Coal Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 157 Okla. 227, 11 P.2d 527; Tulsa County Truck Fruit Growers Ass'n v. McMurphey, 185 Okla. 132, 90 P.2d 927. Under the contract, the right of plaintiff to share in the profits corresponds to the liability of defendant to account therefor, and is no less conditional than the liability. That the liability, by the terms of the contract, is made to depend upon a prescribed event is clear.

We have repeatedly held that where the question of agency is in issue, the apparent authority of an agent, and the scope of such authority, may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Reed v. Anderson, 127 Okla. 64, 259 P. 855; Dunlap v. Shuler, 193 Okla. 125, 141 P.2d 585; Tulsa Co. Truck Fruit G. Ass'n v. McMurphey, 185 Okla. 132, 90 P.2d 927. In Ginner Miller Pub. Co. v. N. S. Sherman Machine Iron Works, 93 Okla. 221, 220 P. 650, we said: