270 rSDEBAL BEPOETEB. �under the covenants of the mortgage, and that it did not enure to the benefit of J. Y. Scammon alone, but was ti?eated by ail the parties as, and was in fact, a proceeding for the benefit of ail, and which protected the interests of ail. �Upon complainant's theory, therefore, the $16,000 received on account of the insurance is not to be treated as a payment upon the mortgage, or as money received by complainant which it -was bound to apply upon the mortgage ; while, on the theory of the contesting defendants, that money should bave been applied in payment of the mortgage indebtedness, and ita receipt by complainant operated as a satisfaction pro tanto of the mortgage, so far as the interests of those defendants were involved, and so left unpaid only the sum of $5,000 and interest. �Upon the assumption that the policy of insurance covered not only the interest of J. Y. Scammon in the insured prop- erty, but also that of his daughters, it becomes important, first, to inquire whether, in making the agreement with complainant by which the insurance money was surrendered to Scammon, he acted not only for himself but also as the authorized rep- resentative of his daughters ; because, if in that transaction he was their authorized agent, it is obvious they could have no ground of complaint, and that would end this controversy. Manifestly he stood in a twofold relation to the property — First, as the owner of the life estate ; and, secondly, as the representative, to a certain extent, of the owners of the rever- sion. The individual acts of Mrs. Eeed and Arianna Scam- mon, in connection with the property, done at the time of, and subsequent to, the original loan, appear to have been limited to the execution of the bond and mortgage in the suit, and the making of the agreement of partition with their father. It must be assumed that he was lel't with unre- stricted authority to manage the property to the extent of erecting buildings thereon, ooUecting rents, paying taxes, and procuring insurance. So far as those acts affected the interests of the owners of the fee, they must be considered as done under authority, express or implied, . Moreover, as to Bome if not ail of such acts, he had not only the legal right. ����
