Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/888

 UNION MUT. LIFE INS. CO. V. MASTEN. 8S1 �Onion Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Masten and others. �lOvrcuit Court, D. Indiana. , 1880.) �L AoBNCT — IMPLIED AuTHOiUTT — EVIDENCE. — The implication oiiglit to be clear where a party relies upon an implied authority from liia prin- cipal to sell real property. �2. Admissions— Evidence.— Admissions are not only competent, but may control the conclusion, where there is a conflict in the evidence, and they conoem the subject-matter about which that conflict arises. �S. AaENCT— Pbesumed Authority— Bona Fidb Fukchaseu.— When property has been purchased of an agent in good faith, and the money paid, under the supposition that the agent was duly authorized to maka the sale, a court of equity will protect the purchaser, if it can do so consistently with principles of law. �Claypool, Newcomh de Ketcham, for plaintiff. �Gordon, Lamb e Shepherd, for defendants. �Dkummond, g. J. It is difficult for the court to determine beyond ail eontroversy what are the facts in this case, as faults have been committed on both Sides. �The facts are that James Buchanan, a lawyer of Indianap- olis, beeame the agent of the plaintiff, a corporation create^ under the laws of Maine, but doing business in Boston, Mas- sachusetts, for the purpose of loaning money and taking security for these loans. A large amount of business was transacted by him. He says about $300,000 were loaned, for which security was taken. �Among the loans was the one which has given rise to the eontroversy in this case. The arrangement made at the timô Mr. Buchanan beeame the agent of the plaintiff, was, accord- ing to bis own statement, that he was to receive his compen- sation out of the commissions the borrowers might be willing to give him for obtaining the loans ; and, in case of foreclosure and legal proceedings, he was to bave such compensation or fees as, by the terms of the contracts which he made with the borrowers, they were to pay. �A tract of land was sold under foreclosure proceedings, and a certificate of purchase was taken by Mr. Buchanan and transmitted to the company. It seems that at the time the �v.3,no.l5-56 ����