I .18 . ‘ FEDERAL'*REPORTEItJ
‘the correspondence to which Bolles was a party, or of which he had act-
ual knowledge, taken in connection with the other facts duly proven.
From the evidence it appears that, in the beginning of the transactions
between Creighton and Bolles, copies of the abstracts of title were for-
·warded for the latter’s inspection, but finally he instructed Creighton that
V it was unnecessary to forward the same, as he (Bolles) would rely on
Creighton’s judgment in this regard. It also appears that Bolles relied
upon Creighton to keep track of thetaxes upon the various tracts of land
mortgagedto the former, and also to keep him fully posted in regard to
· the conduct of the parties indebted, and their modes of doing business.
When it became necessary toforeclose any of the mortgages, Creighton
was intrusted therewith; and he brought the requisite suits, attended the
sales,.bought in the property when necessary, and had full charge of the
property thus purchased. In many instances, he had sent to him the
satisfaction pieces to be recorded, for the purpose of discharging the
" ·mortgageCof record. Of the large amounts of interest paid on the loans
made by Bolles, the larger part, if not the whole thereof, was collected
by Creighton; and the same is true of so much of the principal sums as
was paid by the mortgagees. » . . , . · -.>
. - Unless William Bolles understood that Creighton was acting in his be-
half, and ashis agent, in the management of the loans in question, and
in attending to the collection of the interest and principal thereof, it
would follow that Bolles was willing to invest nearly $200,000 in loans
to many different parties, and to leave the same without supervision in
his interest; intrusting the control and management thereof to the agen-t
of the debtors.` A The correspondence between Bolles and Creighton covers
hundreds of pages and is too voluminous to be copied into an opinion.
All that need be said of it is that it clearly shows thatthe. relation exist-
ing between the parties thereto was thateof principal and agent, and that
` —Bo1les understood that Creighton, in his behalf, was exercising full con-
trol over the loans made by Bolles in Iowa, and in his interest was keep-
ing watch over the payment of taxes, the collection ofinterest and prin-
cipal, and all other matters necessary for the protection of Bolles’ interests
·in the investments thus made.? In fact, had itbeenrshown that Bolles
had in writing originally appointed Creighton his- agent and attorney in
fact for the zpurpose of fully representing Bolles in these transactions, it
is difHcult=to·.conceive of anything he wouldhave been expected to do
undersuchwritten authority which he was not,- in fact, called upon to
do in. the rletters written him by -Bolles. That Bolles recognized and
treated iCreighton as his -general agent, having charge overthe invest-
A » ments made, with power to demand and receivepaymentl of the principal
and interestythereof, is the only reasonable conclusion deducible from
, the correspondence and actsof the parties. That Creighton so under-
stood his authority is clear from his acts. Thus we End him issuing
cards te? niortgagees indebted t0_ Bolles, in which it is said, after giving
amount due, "Please remit at once, and save further costs;" in others,
"It` not paid at once, mortgage will be foreclosed." These cards required
paymentto be made to Creighton, and the recipients thereof could con-