SECURITY co. v. mcnaaoson. 17
by the termsof which he appointed the Union Loan Company his agent
to procure the loan; and the application also contained a statement of
the amount desired to be borrowed, the time of loan, the security offered,
and other like facts. These applications would be generally forwarded
to some broker in the east, and he would place the loan with some one
willing to take the same. The borrower paid a fixed commission to the
Union Loan Association, and a portion thereof was paid to the broker in
the east who finally placed the loan. The broker through whose agency
the loans taken by William Bolles were negotiated was B. R., Abbe of
Hartford, Connecticut. It also appears that in process of time Creigh-
ton virtually controlled all the business done in the name of the Union
Loan Association, and practically the company became merged into
Creighton. In all, nearly 200 separate loans were taken by Bolles,
amounting in the aggregate to over $200,000. Upon these loans, for
several years, Creighton collected interest, and also the principal of some.
Finally, he absconded, and it appeared that he had received upon the °
loans made by William Bolles some $29,000 or more for which he had
not accounted, including the payments made, as already stated, by the
defendant in this case; and the question is, upon which of the parties
must this loss fall? On behalf of the complainant, as the representative .
of William Bolles, it is contended that the note or bond was made pay-
able at Hartford, Connecticut; that Bolles retained possession of the note
and mortgage`; and that no payment became complete until it reached
Bolles’ hands at Hartford; and that, as the defendant paid the same to
Creighton when he did not have in his possession the note or mortgage,
he paid at hisperil, and simply constituted Creighton his agent to con-
vey or forward the money to Bolles. On part of the defendant, the con-
tention is that Bolles had made Creighton his general agent, with author-
ity to collect all sums due on loans made through Creighton, and that
Creighton had authority to receive the payments made, and that his re-
ception thereof binds Bolles. The decision of the case must turn upon
the conclusion reached as to the extent of the authority of Creighton as
agent for Bolles. ·
On the argument, it was suggested that the Union Loan Association or
Creighton must be deemed to be, throughout the transaction, the agent
of the defendant, because such agency existed at the beginning. The
agency conferred by defendant upon the company was to procure the
loan, and when this was accomplished the agency terminated. In fact,
» the loan company or Creighton occupied different positions in these
transactions; being at one time the agent of the borrower, and at another
the agent of the lender. To determine under what circumstances he
acted for the lender, and the extent of his authority, regard must be had
to the dealings between Bolles and Creighton, which extended from 187 7
until in 1885, during which time very many letters were exchanged be-
tween Bolles and Creighton, and between the latter and B. R. Abbe.
Exception is taken to the letters passing between Creighton and Abbe,
as not being evidence against Bolles; but it is not necessary to consider
this exception, as the facts decisive of the case sufficiently appear from
v.33F.no.1——-2