smcumrv co. 1:. nrcrurznsorr. 21
V Counsel for complainant cite many authorities in support of the prop-
osition that " the possession of negotiable paper is regarded as indispen-
sable evidence of the authority•to receive payment thereof ;" and that as
Bolles retained usually the possession of the coupons and notes until the
money reached him, it follows that Creighton was not authorized by him
to receive payment; and that, when he did so demand and receive pay-
ment, he was really acting on behalf of the debtors, as the conduit by
means of which they forwarded the money due to Bolles. It certainly
cannot be true that the only legal evidence of the authority to receive
payment of negotiable paper is the possession thereof. The weight to
be given to the possession, or lack of possession, of negotiable paper, de-
pends upon the facts of each particular case, and the special issue in-
volved. Had Bolles, for instance, written to the defendant, telling him
that he had appointed Creighton his agent to collect and receive all
moneys coming to him on his Iowa investments, and that he should pay
the mortgage debt to Creighton, and that, upon such payment being
made, he (Bolles) would forward the notes, mortgage, and satisfaction
piece, would not the defendant have been entirely justified in making
payment to Creighton, even though the note and mortgage were not in
Creighton’s hands at the time? In effect,·this is exactly what Bolles,
by his course ot` dealing with Creighton, did represent to the defendant
and all others indebted to him in Iowa on loans made through the agency
of Creighton. .
The evidence conclusively shows that Bolles had constituted Creighton
his agent; that he expected him to look after his interests in all matters
connected with the loans made; that he authorized him to collect the
· moneys due, both interest and principal; that he expected the moneys
to be paid to Creighton before the latter had in his possession the nego-
tiable paper involved; that innumerable payments were in fact thus
made, and such payments were in all instances approved by Bolles; that
he knew that Creighton had announced by circular that he was ready to
receive payment by installments on the principal of the mortgages due
Bolles, and that he took no exception thereto, but in fact approved and
confirmed the action of his agent in this particular. Under such cir-
cumstances, it is useless to urge that the protection accorded to negotia-
ble paper on grounds of public policy and convenience requires the court
to hold that the consequences of the rascality of Creighton should be
visited upon the debtor, rather than upon the creditor, who placed it in
his power to commit the wrongs whose consequences must be borne by
some one. There is no question in the case arising out of the law of ne-
gotiable paper. The issue is bctween the original creditor and debtor,
and it turns upon the question whether Bolles did or did not constitute
Creighton his agent, with authority to receive payment in his behalf of
the sums due him. The evidence shows that such agency and author-
ity existed, and hence it follows that the mortgage debt in question was
fully discharged bythe payments made to Creighton, and hence the bill
must be dismissed on the merits, at cost of complainant.