
    [No. 1837]
    ESMERALDA COUNTY, etc., Appellant, v. J. F. BRADLEY, et als., Respondents.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Nevada, Esmeralda County; Tlieron Stevens, Judge.
    Action by Esmeralda County against J. F. Bradley and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
    
      Augustus Tilden, District Attorney, for Appellant:
    I. Esmeralda County in this case seeks to recover from Mr. Bradley and his official sureties the sum of $3,423.93, being six per cent of the licenses collected by Mr. Bradley, as ex officio license collector of Esmeralda County from April 1, 1905, to February 1, 1906, and retained by Mr. Bradley as his commission. 'The county also seeks to recover 'the sum of $855.98 as penalties and interest. Mr. Bradley’s claim is that after the Esmeralda salary act of 1905 he, being sheriff and ex officio license collector of Esmeralda County, was entitled to the commissions reserved and retained by him. The county disputes that right. The matter having been fully gone into in the case of Bradley v. Gou/nty, it is needless here to present it further.
    
      Summeifield & Gurler, for Respondent:
    I. Respondent concurs in the statement made by appellant’s- counsel in its brief that there is no reason why the determination in the case of Bradley v. Esmeralda County, should not be conclusive in this case.
   By the Court,

Noeceoss, C. J.:

This is an action instituted by Esmeralda County against J. F. Bradley, as sheriff of said county, and his bondsmen, to recover the sum of $3,423.93, representing the amount of percentages retained by said Bradley as ex officio collector of licenses. The case involves the same question of law this day determined in the case of Bradley v. Esmeralda County (No. 1,838), 32 Nev. 159. In the lower court the two cases were consolidated and heard together. Judgment in the case was rendered in favor of the defendants for their costs of suit.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in case No. 1,838, supra, the judgment is affirmed.  