
    Argued April 16,
    affirmed July 30, 1929.
    ROBERT N. MUNLY v. A. O. JONES.
    (279 Pac. 630.)
    
      For appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Mr. James P. Stapleton.
    
    For respondent there was a brief over the name of Mr. V. V. Pendergrass.
    
   COSHOW, C. J.

The bill of exceptions in this action discloses that the questions objected to by plaintiff, both those propounded to plaintiff on cross-examination and to defendant on direct examination, related to the employment of plaintiff by defendant. It must be borne in mind that plaintiff alleged that he was retained by defendant and employed by him in his professional capacity as attorney at law and that he rendered certain services by virtue of said employment and retainer. Defendant denied that allegation. Plaintiff was required to prove that he rendered the services as alleged. The defendant, therefore, had a right to question his alleged employment of plaintiff. An account rendered must be based on some substantial service, merchandise sold or some other matters which created a debt from defendant to the plaintiff. If plaintiff rendered no services to defendant or for which defendant was legally liable, he cannot recover any sum from him by sending him an account, although defendant never denied the account : 1 C. J. 695, § 288.

The evidence was conflicting. Both parties having moved for a directed verdict the jury was waived. No error is predicated upon the action of the court in discharging the jury. The court having found in favor of defendant upon conflicting evidence the judgment of the Circuit Court is conclusive. This court has no right to go behind a judgment rendered on conflicting evidence without some error of law having been made. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McBride, Band and Bossman, JJ., concur.  