
    Cornelius E. Kene, Resp’t, v. William R. Bergholz, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed December 8, 1890.)
    
    .Services—Employment of attorney by president op corporation.
    Plaintiff was employed by defendant, who was the president of a railroad, to commence an action in his name as such president. In an action to recover for services performed under such employment, the evidence was conflicting as to whether defendant acted for the company or individually in employing plaintiff. Reid, that this was a question of fact, and was settled by the verdict of the jury in plaintiff’s favor.
    ■ Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on verdict, and from order denying motion for a new trial.
    Action to recover for professional services as attorney.
    Two rival companies, namely, the Yew Rochelle Horse Railway Company and the Yew Rochelle & Pelham Railway Company, were applicants before the trustees of the village of Yew Rochelle for the franchise of constructing and operating a horse railroad in the village. The trustees undertook to grant the franchise to the latter company. The defendant was the president of the former company. He employed the plaintiff as an attorney to begin and prosecute in his name as such president an action against the latter company and the village trustees, to prevent the consummation of the grant of the franchise, and to prevent the latter company from acting under it.
    The plaintiff, under such employment, proceeded, brought the action, obtained and served the injunction. After a time a compromise was effected by which the defendant became the president of the latter company, and the legal proceedings were, by his order, discontinued. The plaintiff’s charges for his services and disbursements were $219.50. Yo question is made but that the bill is very reasonable in amount.
    The defendant disclaimed any personal liability, alleging that he, as president of the railway company, authorized the services to be performed, and that the railway company, and not he individually, was liable for the payment of plaintiff’s bill.
    The testimony was conflicting; plaintiff testifying that defendant requested him to proceed “ on his accountand defendant that he employed plaintiff on behalf of the company, and so informed him, which was denied by plaintiff. It appeared that plaintiff presented a bill to the company, but this was explained by his uncontradicted testimony that he was told by the representative of the opposition company, in the presence of the defendant, to send his bill to the company, which, as a part of the compromise, would pay it. It also appeared that the defendant personally paid the costs of the attorney of the village upon discontinuance of this litigation.
    The jury rendered a verdict for the full amount of plaintiff’s biii.
    
      J. M. Ferguson, for app’lt; Isaac K Mills, for resp’t.
   Pratt, J.

There is nothing involved in this case but a question of fact which was fairly submitted to the jury and is settled by their verdict.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Dykman, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.  