learned circuit judge that the evidence referred to would not change the result upon a new trial. Morin v. Robarge, 132 Mich. 337 (93 N. W. 886).

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

MOORE, C. J., and STEERE, MCALVAY, KUHN, STONE, OSTRANDER, and BIRD, JJ., concurred.

POWERS v. COUNTY OF CALHOUN.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR-TRIAL BY COURT-FINDINGS OF FACT. Upon error to a judgment that was rendered by the court, acting without a jury, the findings of fact must be accepted as conclusive if there was evidence to support them.

2. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT-COUNTIES-FEES-CONTRACTS. Findings that plaintiff, an attorney, was requested by the prosecuting attorney of Calhoun county to assist him in a mandamus proceeding instituted against the board of supervisors, and was advised that the prosecutor would approve his bill, if it was reasonable, that the chairman of the board and one other member were informed that plaintiff was acting, but the board have the right to pass upon the claim for services, in the absence of any finding that the court authorized or approved that appointment, or that the board or prosecuting attorney employed plaintiff, justified a judgment for defendant county.

Case-made from Calhoun; North, J. Submitted October 11, 1912. (Docket No. 48.) Decided November 8,

1912.

Walter S. Powers presented to the board of supervisors of Calhoun county a claim for services rendered as attor

ney and counsel. It was disallowed and plaintiff appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings case-made. Affirmed.

J. M. Powers, for appellant.

R. H. Kirschman, Prosecuting Attorney, and Edward R. Loud, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

OSTRANDER, J. In April, 1911, the supervisors of Calhoun county met to canvass the vote cast for and against local option in the county. It adjourned without repealing the prohibition resolution, which for two years had been in force in the county. Legal proceedings were instituted to compel them to reconvene and repeal the said resolution. The circuit court for the county of Calhoun, upon the petition of interested parties, in mandamus proceedings, issued its order directing them to show cause why they should not meet, and declare that local option, so called, had been defeated at the said 1911 election. The supervisors, as a board, answered, and, after a hearing, the court made its order that the writ prayed for should issue. The supervisors then sued out of the Supreme Court a writ of certiorari to review the action of the circuit court; the affidavit therefor being made by the chairman of the board. The writ of certiorari issued and the determination of the circuit court was affirmed. Plaintiff assisted the prosecuting attorney of Calhoun county in such proceedings in the circuit court and in this court. He gave his assistance upon the request of the prosecuting attorney, who advised him that he would O. K. a reasonable bill for his services, and who expected, as he later testified, that the supervisors would take his (the prosecuting attorney's) advice and pay the bill. Upon presenting his bill, the amount of which is not questioned, the board of supervisors refused to allow it. Plaintiff thereupon appealed to the circuit court for Calhoun county, and that court, after a hearing, at which testimony was introduced, declined to allow the claim. The court made

a finding in the form of an opinion, and plaintiff proposed a finding amendatory thereof.

The finding proposed by plaintiff we set out, with the rulings of the circuit judge thereon:

"PROPOSED FINDINGS.

"(1) I find as a fact that, before the services were rendered by the plaintiff, the prosecuting attorney for said county of Calhoun said to the plaintiff that, if he would assist him in the case of the Battle Creek Brewing Com pany v. Board of Supervisors of Calhoun County, he, the said prosecuting attorney, would O. K. the plaintiff's bill for such services to said board of supervisors, and that said prosecuting attorney did O. K. said bill after the services were rendered and before the bill was presented to the board of supervisors, viz., on the 16th day of June,

1911.

"(2) I find as a fact that the plaintiff assented to that arrangement and said to the prosecuting attorney, in substance, that such arrangement would be satisfactory.

(3) I find as a fact that the services charged for in this cause were rendered by the plaintiff in pursuance of such arrangement with the prosecuting attorney.

"(4) I find as a fact that the circuit court for the county of Calhoun made an order directing the board of supervisors of said county to show cause before said court why a mandamus should not issue directing said board to reconvene and repeal the local-option resolution then on the records of said county of Calhoun, and that the claim of the plaintiff in this cause grew out of said litigation for legal services rendered in said litigation.

"(5) I further find that said board of supervisors did show cause by an answer signed, 'Calhoun County Board of Supervisors, by Robt. H. Kirschmann, Prosecuting Attorney, W. S. Powers, of Counsel.'

"(6) I further find as a fact that, when the hearing was called in the circuit court on said order to show cause, the prosecuting attorney for said county said to the court, in substance, that he desired the court to recognize the plaintiff as his assistant on said hearing; that plaintiff took charge of the case, interrogated all of the witnesses that were sworn on said hearing; that plaintiff made an argument to the court at the close of the testimony taken; that said plaintiff was recognized by the court as requested by the prosecuting attorney.

"(7) I further find as a fact that the petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the lower court was made by Ralph Doolittle as chairman of the board of supervisors of said county, signed and sworn to by him, and that such petition at the time it was signed and sworn to contained the name of Robt. H. Kirschman, prosecuting attorney, and W. S. Powers, of counsel.

"(8) I find as a fact that all the papers in the circuit court and Supreme Court on behalf of the respondent, board of supervisors, in said litigation, contained the name of Robt. H. Kirschman, prosecuting attorney, and the plaintiff as counsel, and that said papers contained the name of no other attorneys.

"(9) I find as a fact that when the petition to the Supreme Court for said writ of certiorari was signed and sworn to by the chairman of said board, Ralph Doolittle, the plaintiff's name was signed to said petition as counsel, and that said Doolittle was told, in substance, that a bill would probably be presented to the county for the services of the plaintiff as attorney in said cause.

"(10) I find as a fact that the following bill was presented to said board of supervisors at its October, 1911, session, certified to by Robt. H. Kirschman, prosecuting attorney for said county, disallowed by said board, after plaintiff presented evidence of the claim; that the plaintiff appealed from said decision, and that said claim is the basis of plaintiff's claim in this suit; that it was admitted on the trial of this cause that said prosecuting attorney signed and certified said bill after the services were all rendered.

"COUNTY OF CALHOUN.

"In account with W. S. Powers, Dr.

...1911.

To services rendered as attorney in the Local-Option cases before the Board of Supervisors in the Circuit Court and in the Supreme Court from the 10th day of April to the 27th, 1911, $200.00. 'To expenses to Lansing on said case, $2.28.

'I hereby certify that the above services were rendered by W. S. Powers, and the charges therefor are reasonable in amount and proper to be paid by said county of Calhoun.

"ROBERT H. KIRSCHMAN,

"Prosecuting Attorney.'

"And I also find as a fact that the amount claimed by

172 MICH.-43.

plaintiff, viz., $202.28, is a reasonable charge, and that plaintiff's services rendered in the circuit and Supreme Courts in said litigation was worth the amount claimed.

"(11) I further find as a fact that several attorneys were sworn on this trial and testified that plaintiff's services were worth from $500 to $800, and that no testimony was offered to contradict such evidence."

"PROPOSED FINDINGS OF LAW.

"(1) I find, as a matter of law, that the prosecuting at torney had a legal right to employ the plaintiff to assist him in the trial of the case of the Battle Creek Brewing Company v. Board of Supervisors of Calhoun County, and that such charges would constitute a proper charge against the county.

"(2) I find, as a matter of law, that when the prosecuting attorney said to the plaintiff, if he would assist in the trial of the case, he, the prosecuting attorney, would 0. K. the bill before the board of supervisors and the plaintiff assented and performed the services, that would constitute a binding agreement on the county, and the plaintiff would be entitled to recover what his services were reasonably worth.

"(3) If the services were rendered by the plaintiff with the knowledge and consent of the prosecuting attorney upon the statement that the bill would be O. K.'d by the prosecuting attorney to the board of supervisors, that would constitute a binding agreement, and the county would be liable for plaintiff's services.

"(4) It being admitted that the plaintiff performed the services and paid out the money for and claimed in this case in the above-mentioned litigation, and that such services were necessary and the charges therefor reasonable, that such services were performed in connection with the prosecuting attorney, both in the circuit and Supreme Courts, that the prosecuting attorney advised with and accompanied the plaintiff to Lansing to procure the writ of certiorari, that the name of the plaintiff was on all the papers in the case, wherever the prosecuting attorney's name appeared as counsel, and it was known to the chairman of the board of supervisors that the plaintiff's name so appeared, and said chairman was informed that there would probably be a bill presented to said board of supervisors for the service of plaintiff, I find as a matter of law