In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nevada.

Action at law by R. P. Dunlap against the Montana Tonopah Mining Company. Judgment (192 Fed. 714) for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

The defendant in error was plaintiff in the court below, where he brought the action to recover the value of services claimed to have been rendered by him for the defendant during a period of about seven years at Tonopah, Nev. During that period he was officially connected with the company, first, as secretary and treasurer at a fixed salary which was regularly paid him, next as a director, and then as vice president of the corporation. From January, Xi)03, to October 15, 1903, he was secretary and treasurer at a salary of $150 a month, which salary was increased to $200 a month for the period extending from October 15, 1903, to February 2, 1905, at which time he resigned the office of secretary and treasurer. From September, 1903, to February 15, 1910, he was one of the directors of the company, and from September 11, 1906, to February 15, 1910, was its vice president. On the last-mentioned day he resigned as director and vice president of the company, and on the 26th of the same month commenced the present action, alleging in his complaint that from about January, 1903, to about February 15, 1910, the plaintiff was engaged in the service of the defendant, and rendered it services at its request for which the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff whenever it was ont of debt, and that on February 15. 1910, the defendant was out of debt, and had a large amount of surplus funds in its treasury; that the reasonable value of the services so rendered by the plaintiff was the sum of $24,-900, no part of which has been paid except the sum of $3,900 paid the plaintiff prior to January, 1905. and $500 which was subsequently paid him, leaving a balance of $20,500 still due from the defendant to the plaintiff, for which he prayed judgment, with costs.

By its answer and amended answer the defendant company set up the facts respecting the lidding by the plaintiff of the offices of secretary and treasurer and director and vice president, the fixed salary of the office of secretary and treasurer during the time the plaintiff held it, and the full payment of such salary by the company, the duration of time that plaintiff held the office of director and vice president, to which it was alleged and proved no compensation was attached, and the answer then alleged that the plaintiff never performed any services for or on behalf of the defendant company except such as were incidental to the offices he at the time held, and that there was nothing owing from the defendant to the plaintiff. By a further amended answer the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations against the claim of the plaintiff for any services rendered prior to a date four years before the commencement of the action.

Tlie case was tried before the court with a jury, which returned a verdict in the plaintiff's favor for $7,500, for which, with costs, judgment was entered against the defendant company, which brings tile ease here on writ of error.