‘ 28 FEDERAL Bsroarna. ~ V
zled by`Creighton was that procured from Gifford, and which came into
the hands of Creighton in September, 1884. The procuring of this loan
was the act of the defendant Blizzard, with which the complainant was
not in any sense connected. It does not appear that Blizzard was moved
in procuring the same by any act, demand, or notice from either com-
plainant or Creighton. The debt to complainant did not mature until
November 1 ,· 1884, and the initiatory steps in the procurement of the loan
from Gifford were taken in August previous, and the money was actually
received by Creighton in September. When the money came into his
hands hereceived it in his capacity of agent for Blizzard. There is noth-
ing in the evidence to show that Blizzard expected to pay off the loan to
complainant before its maturity. All that can be inferred from the evi-
dence is that he had taken the steps resulting in the procurement of the
second loan for the purpose of being prepared to meet the debt due to
complainant when the same came due. The money in the hands of
Creighton remained the money of Blizzard, unless it was appropriated to
the payment of the debt of complainant, and there is nothing shown in
the evidence upon which such appropriation can be predicated. The
testimony of the defendant Blizzard was taken in the case, but he was
not interrogated in regard to the second loan, and does not refer to it,
nor to the use to be made of the money so obtained. In the written
stipulation of facts submitted it is stated "that on or about the 26th day
of August, 1884, the defendants Harrison Blizzard and Martha E. Bliz-
zard, for thepurpose of raising money to pay off and satisfy the mort-
gage attempted to be foreclosed in this action, made an application for a
·loan of money through the Union Loan Association of Des Moines, Iowa,
for the purpose of borrowing the sum of $700/’ etc. There is nothing
‘ in the evidence to show that Blizzard directed or expected Creighton to
hold the money after its reception, and it is not shown that he ever di-
. rected him to apply it to the payment of the debt due complainant. The
statement is that Blizzard, for the purpose of procuring the money to pay
the debt due complainant, applied for a new loan; but it is not shown
that he ever directly authorized Creighton to make the application to the
payment of complainant’s debt. - It further appears that Blizzard did not
know until after April, 1885, that the money had been procured on the
second bond and mortgage executed. Two letters written Blizzard by
Creighton—one in December, 1884, and one April 25, 1885——are in evi-
dence, in which Creighton wrote him that, owing to the scarcity of
money, he had been unable to negotiate the second loan, but that he
hoped to be able to do so by May 1st. It‘does not, therefore, appear,
as already said, that Blizzard had expressly directed Creighton to apply
the money when received upon the second loan to the payment of the
loan due complainant, and he was not induced to believe that such ap-
-propriation had in fact been made, because he was led to believe that
the money had not been received by Creighton. In the stipulation of
facts it is agreed that Creighton never used the proceeds of the second
loan for the purpose of paying off and satisfying the mortgage debtdue
complainant, but converted the money .to his own use ; and: it is not _