foreman of appellant's mine for several years. He was regularly employed, and was to be paid for his services at the rate of five dollars per day. He also kept a boarding-house, where the laborers employed at the mine boarded. A. J. Rhodes was the superintendent of the mine, and a large owner therein. He was also engaged in the general business of merchandising. Respondent bought most of his supplies at Rhodes' store. The question whether appellant is indebted to respondent in any of the amounts stated depends, to a great extent, upon the nature of the business relations existing between respondent and Rhodes. The theory of appellant is, and the testimony offered in its behalf tends to show, that respondent's accounts against appellant were transferred or turned over to Rhodes, and that Rhodes had been paid in full by appellant. The theory of respondent is, and his testimony tends to show, that he only turned over these accounts to Rhodes so as to cover the extent of his indebtedness to Rhodes, and that the understanding was that appellant was to be responsible for the balance due him, and that the same had never been paid.

When this case was first presented to this court, there was no controversy as to the manner in which the business transactions between respondent and Rhodes were conducted. Martin v. Victor M. & M. Co., 18 Nev. 306; S. C. 3 Pac. Rep. 488. But the testimony as now presented upon this point is different in many of its phases from that contained in the former record. Appellant, however, contends that the facts to be gleaned from the present record are substantially the same as in the former, especially as to the business relations between respondent and Rhodes. This position is sought to be maintained by a direct attack upon the veracity of respondent; it being claimed that no credit should be given to his testimony. It is argued that his testimony on the last trial "is self-contradictory and selfnullifying," and that he stands before this court "self-convicted of falsehood." It is claimed that his testimony, upon all the material matters, is in direct conflict with his testimony at the first trial, and it is charged that he was induced to make this change in his testimony on account of the previous decision of this court. There are many statements made in his cross-examination which are to some extent contradictory of his testimony in chief; and some portions of his testimony in chief are shown to be at variance with his testimony upon the same points at his former trial. But after a careful examination of the entire record, we are unwilling to say that his testimony is unworthy of belief, or that in our opinion there is anything. in the record to show that he has knowingly or willfully testified falsely in relation to any of the items of account. We think that his contradictory statements are to be accounted for by the peculiar complications arising from his business transactions with Mr. Rhodes, and by a failure, upon his part, to fully comprehend the nature of some of the questions asked him upon a tedious, searching, and ingenious cross

examination, rather than upon any intentional design to misrepresent any of the facts. In considering his testimony it must be remembered that appellant's affairs were so blended and mixed up with the business transactions of its superintendent and foreman that it was difficult for counsel, and by no means easy for this court, to explain the relations existing between them. The entire business between all of these parties seems to have been conducted in a loose, careless, and unsatisfactory manner. No regular books were kept by the superintendent. He took the vouchers, pay-rolls, and bills given to him by the foreman, and sent them to the office of appellant in San Francisco, California. The foreman kept books; but, judging him by the record before us, he is not a success as a book-keeper. He was, however, for six years the trusted friend and adviser of appellant. In him at all times it reposed the utmost confidence. He was considered and treated as an honest, worthy, faithful, and confidential employe, and, as such, was intrusted with the management and control of appellant's mining property to a great extent, as the superintendent was seldom at the mine.

The question whether the superintendent kept any books, or whether appellant had any office at Belleville, is made the subject of attack upon the veracity of respondent, and furnishes an illustration of the conflict which exists between his testimony and the testimony of Mr. Rhodes. The facts are that appellant had no office specially designated as such by signs or other outward marks. It conducted its business, through its superintendent, in a room at his store. This room was also his private office, and in which he kept his store books. Respondent testifies that this room was appellant's office, and that its books were kept there. On the other hand, Rhodes testifies that appellant had no office and kept no books. Respondent claims, upon this point, to have been deceived by Rhodes, and the result of the testimony seems to be that, as to some of the accounts, the respondent thought he was getting credit on appellant's books, when in fact the entries were made in the store books kept by Mr. Rhodes. It is, however, immaterial whether the books in which the entries were made were the books of Rhodes or the books of appellant. The controlling question is whether appellant was to be liable to the foreman for the balance of his account, over and above the amount due from him to Rhodes; or was it the understanding that he was to look to Rhodes for his pay?

Appellant had knowledge of the manner in which its business was conducted. It appears from the record that appellant was advised from time to time of the state of its accounts with respondent. For a period of four years after Rhodes closed his store the president of appellant, at various times, writes to respondent with reference to his accounts, making excuses for the delay in paying him, and promising to pay him as soon as appellant realizes any money from the sale of its property. The superintendent spent much of his time in San

Francisco. He was one of the directors of the corporation. The president was also a director. They were working together, and had each other's confidence in the business of the corporation. In relation to the question whether the corporation was indebted to respondent or not, we take the following extracts from the letters of the president of the corporation to respondent, which were written subsequent to the time of the closing of Rhodes' store in April, 1880:

June 24, 1880:

"I received Mr. Kimball's letter, written at your request, and will state that in a short time I will get matters arranged so as to settle off with the men and keep them paid up promptly, and you will get all your money. It is perfectly safe."

May 19, 1881:

"As to your account, you may rest at ease; both McCain and myself assure you that, as soon as a sale is made and the money paid, the debts will be paid first of all, before the stockholders get a dollar.”

It does not affirmatively appear who McCain is, but it is fair to presume, from the frequent reference to his name in connection with the president's in efforts made to assist and protect Rhodes, that it is James S. McCain, whose name appears as one of the directors of the corporation.

June 10, 1881:

"Your letter received. * * * Now, I want a statement of your account in full against the company; also a full account of the men that have been employed in the mine since July, 1879. I want the pay-rolls of each month by themselves, and the men that you have paid. State it, and make out a bill against the company as paid by you. * ** I think this will be a sale, and you will get all your money soon."

July 12, 1881:

"Your letter of the 7th received. * * * * As to the account, we have it all written out in shape, and will soon get the balance. That $2,000 charged as cash to the Victor you did not say what it was for, but we will work it out. I told the secretary that you used it to pay off the men, and that you had their notes for it, and when you come here for a settlement you will present them all for payment. Your not giving a list of those you paid money to makes it harder for us to work out. We take the full pay-rolls, deduct your own, and then find balance due, and if balance is paid we credit you. * ** If you charge us the $2,000 and the order also, you will get the amount in twice. We will get it right and send it to you, and you will get all your money from the company. I will show the account to Mr. Rhodes as soon as I get it out straight, and tell him that you want the settlement with the Victor Company."

Next follows the letter reported in 18 Nev. 303, (3 Pac. Rep. 488,) dated July 13, 1881.

September 1st:

"Your letter of the 30th received and I note all you say. First, about your account. I promised you that the company should stand good to you for that; and that you can depend on."

April 14, 1882:

pay all.

* * *

"Your letter of April 10th this day received. I have read it all and note all you say. I note your remarks about the Kline matter, and that I always have money. * * * You know that we have done all in our power to We sold the property and the money was to come for it. I did not put up money, not a dollar, in the Kline matter; but it was put up by friends of the company. *** It was impossible for me to send you any money. * * *I do not forget my promise to you as to your account, and I understand all about it. The money is promised by the 15th to pay everything up. When it comes you will be paid. ** * You have been the trusted man of the company, and I hope and trust that you will do all you can to help us through our troubles and not make us more.

May 31, 1884.

"Your letter received. * * * ** I am trying to get some money to send you. * * * I told Mr. Rhodes that it was too bad that you was treated. so, after standing by us as you had done."

On the twenty-second of March, 1881, Mr. Rhodes writes a letter to respondent, which also sheds some light upon the disputed question of any indebtedness.

"Yours in hand. As regards my saying that the Victor did not owe you any money, you can tell those parties that it is a lie. I have never told any one anything of the kind. It is their own manufactory, and I don't think they ever heard any one say so; and if they and their kind would hold their tongues, we would have had money for you long ago.

These letters explain themselves. We shall therefore proceed upon the theory that appellant is indebted to respondent in some amount, and that his testimony should be taken into consideration in determining the disputed questions at issue between these parties. A general objection is made to the allowance of any of the accounts. for money advanced or paid out by respondent for appellant's use and benefit, on the grounds that there is no evidence showing, or tending to show, that appellant ever requested him to advance or pay out any money for its use or benefit; that the payments, if made, were made gratuitously; that no officer of appellant was authorized to request any one to advance money in its behalf, or to sanction or ratify the acts of respondent; and that his acts, in this respect, were never ratified by appellant.

Appellant, in its business transactions of the nature revealed by the testimony in this case, must be treated the same as an individual engaged in like business. If its duly-authorized officers or agents, acting for it, had knowledge of, sanctioned, and ratified the acts of respondent in advancing money for its use and benefit, and appellant, with full knowledge of all the transactions, acquiesced in the acts and declarations of its officers and agents in their dealings with respondent, it should be held liable for the money so advanced by respondent. It cannot, under such circumstances, avoid this liability on the ground that such a course of proceeding was never authorized by its directors. It is made manifest from the testimony that appellant had knowledge of the advances of money in its behalf by respondent. It received the benefit of these advances without protest

or objection, and, through its officers, repeatedly informed respondent that it would be made "all right," and that he should be repaid as soon as it could obtain the money. Respondent, among other things, testified as follows:

"Many times I spoke to Mr. Rhodes of the money I had advanced to the men for the company. Rhodes said it was all right and that I would be paid for the money I had thus advanced."

Similar testimony was given in relation to each account where it is claimed advances were made.

On the twentieth of June, 1881, the president writes to respondent and says:

"Yours with pay-rolls and letter received. The balance of your account, October 25, 1879, $10,068.05, I cannot get at for books of company: I think you had better send me your books by express.'

On the twenty-third of June, 1881, another letter is written stating:

"In sending for your books the other day I should have stated more fully why I wanted them. * * * I wanted a full detailed statement to put on the books of the company and place your account to your credit on the books, so that the money, when paid for the mine, if sold, can be paid out without delay. You can arrange to have yours paid just as you like."

On the first of July the president acknowledges the receipt of respondent's books. In August following the respondent, as he testifies, had a conversation with the president and superintendent of appellant in San Francisco, California, and, in reply to his request for a settlement, told him to go with the secretary of appellant, examine the accounts, and find the balance, and said "that everything that was done between the secretary and myself would be all right; that the secretary and respondent examined the books and accounts and found a balance to be due respondent of some ten or eleven thousand dollars;" and that all the accounts sued for were in the books which they examined. In the light of all the testimony we are of opinion that appellant must be held liable for the amounts of money which respondent at various times advanced for its use and benefit. There is sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the court allowing respondent $2,224, upon the first count in the complaint. Respondent testified as follows:

"I had a settlement with A. J. Rhodes, the superintendent of the company, on the fourth day of May, 1878, and a balance of $2,224 was admitted to be due me. * * * The balance of $2,224 was never paid to me by defendant or any one in its behalf."

We deem it unnecessary to discuss the controversy arising from the evidence as to when this account commenced, there being an admitted mistake of one year in the first statement of respondent, and in the entry made in the books kept by him, which was corrected at the first trial upon his cross-examination, further than to state that it does not affirmatively appear that there was any intentional design,