16 — FEDERAL mszronrmz.
SECURITY C0. v. RICHARDSON et 01.4
V (Uzreuit Court, S. DQ Iowa, CC D. December 12, 1887.) A
‘ PAYunn·r—-To AGENT·····AUTHORITY. I
· In an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, the defendant pleaded pay-
ment and discharge. From the evidence, it appeared that the broker to whom
_ payment had been made had been engaged in negotiating loans for complain-
, ant for about eight years; that during that time he had collected nearly all
the interest as it became due on the different loans, and in many instances the
principal also, though payable elsewhere; that, with reference to theseloans,
he ha the management of the complainants entire business, notifying de-
linquents, paying taxes, and attending to the foreclosures. Letters of in-
quiry regarding the manner of payment of the loans, and the broker’s author-
ity to accept payment of the principal before maturity, were referred by com-
‘ _ plainant, to the broker for reply. Held, suflicient evidence that the broker
was a general agent, duly authorized to accept payment of interest and prin-
cipal, even before maturity. 4 _
Bill for the Foreclosure of Mortgage. V ·
e Oammins &· Wright, for complainant.
Lehmann dc Park, for defendant.
Snmas, J. » In Uanuary, 1878, Thomas H. Richardson borrowed of
William Bolles the sum of $2,500, and as security therefor executed a
note or bond, and a mortgage oncertain realty situated in Wayne county,
Iowa, the principal and interestbeing payable at B.` R. Abbe’s office in
Hartford, Connecticut, and the present suit is instituted for the purpose
' of foreclosing this mortgage; the defense being that the debt is fully paid,
and the mortgage discharged and released on the record. It is admitted
that the complainant holds the note and mortgage merely as trustee for
William Bolles, and not in its own right, and the questions in dispute
are to be determined the same as though William Bolles was the com-
, plainant. By its terms, the note came due November 1, 1882. On
V the first day of May, 1882, Richardson paid to one Hugh R. Creighton,
’ of Des Moines, $1,700, and on the twenty-fourth of April, 1883, a sum
’ sufficient, if added to the $1,700, to pay the note in full; and the ques-
tion to be determined is whether these payments made to Creighton are
to be deemed to be payments to Bolles, and binding upon him, Creigh-
ton having failed to account for the same. To determine this question
» it is necessary to ascertain the relation held by Creighton to the respective
_ parties,   the authority he had from Bolles touching the matter of
collecting and receiving moneys due him.
It appears that Creighton had organized at Des Moines, Iowa, a com-
, pany, known as the " Union Loan Association," for the purpose of pro-
curing and making loans of money on real estate in Iowa. To the bor-
rower it was represented that the company had facilities for procuring
loans from eastern capitalists; to the latter it was represented that through
the agency of the company desirable loans could be made on Hrst-class
security. When a person in Iowa desired to procure a loan, he would
apply to the company, and was required to sign a written application,