sncumrr oo. v. nrciuanson. - 19
strue them only as demands made~by Creighton on behalf of the holder
of the mortgage and note. ` r
V It appears that in this, and in some other instances, payments on the
principal of the debt were made to Creighton before the maturity of the
loan, and it is averred that even if it be true that Creighton was acting
on behalf of Bolles in looking after and collecting these loans, never-
theless, receiving payment before maturity was not an act within the
authority actually possessed by Creighton, and was of such an unusual
character as to put parties upon their guard, and that in thus paying be-
fore maturity the debtors assumed the risk of the money actually reach-
ing the hands of the creditor. If it be true that Creighton was in fact
the agent of William Bolles in Iowa, charged with the duty of looking
after his investments in this state, and with authority to receive payment
of the principal and interest of the several loans, can it be said that re-
ceiving payment in advance of maturity was so clearly beyond the scope
of his authority that third parties should have known that in so doing
he was acting-beyond his authority, and therefore not binding his prin- ‘
cipal? The exact facts of the case must be borne in mind. It is not a
case wherein a debtor, wishing for his own convenience to make payment
on a debt not yet due, comes to an agent of the principal, and induces
him to accept payment before maturity. Creighton, who, as the evi-
dence shows, was acting as agent for Bolles in the general management
and collection of these loans,-in sending to the debtors cards containing
statements of the times whenthe interest payments would mature, and
demanding payment thereof, includes therewith a statement that pay-
ments before maturity on the principal would be received. Thus in the
notice sent to the defendant herein regarding the interest about to ma-
ture November 1, 1879, there is printed the following: "To accommo- · V
date those wishing to begin to pay off their loans in installments, pay-
ments of $50 andupward on the principal will be received, and interest
stopped thereon if paid at the same time interest is." This statement is
found in the various forms of cards sent out by Creighton generally.
Now, when a debtor received such a statement in a notice sent to him
regarding payment of interest, whatwould he have the right to infer?
Upon inquiring, he would learnt that Bolles had constituted Creighton
his general agent for the purpose of managing and collecting his invest-
ments in Iowa, and that a similar notice in regard to payments by in-
stallments upon the principal had been sent to all, or nearly all, the par-
ties owing debts to Bolles, and that the same had been sent for several
successive years,~and further, that Creighton had received many such
partial payments made before due, and no complaint regarding the same
had been made by Bolles. What other inference could be fairly drawn
than that such announcement in regard to payment in advance was en-
tirely authorized by Bolles. But, should it be said that the debtors
should have still been skeptical touching the authority of Creighton to
thus receive paymentsin advance of maturity, then the only course open
to them would have been to apply zdirectly to Bolles, in order to ascer-
tain whether he knew of and approved of such action xon part of . his