HUTT V. GBISWOLD. 577 �/'to the extent of its value at the time of conversion, and that the transfer of it was such a conversion; or, if not a conver- sion, su eh a misappropriation as would discharge the surety, at least, to the same extent. If the effect of a conversion would be as claimed, there must be a real conversion first. What appears to have been done does not amount to that. He did not put it to his own use in any respecta He put it into other hands to hold for him, in order that what was intended for a seourity might not be a burden. The honesty of the purpose is not important in this respect. The question is as to the amount of what was done, not the motive with which it was done. If it amounted to a conversion, good motives would not make it less; and, if not, bad ones would not make it more. He did not exercise any dominion over it in defiance of the rights of those for and from whom he held it, but only in furtherance of the object for which he took it. He did not sell it, but merely transferred it to be held for him, and took the certificates under his right, with a power of attorney to transfer it at his will again, which he held coupled with his interest. �The further question is whether what he did so impaired the security as to affect the right of the surety. Under the circumstances he was bound to so manage it that the surety should not, in any substantial degree, be deprived of its appli- cation to the debt. He was not at ail responsible for the depreciation in its value. He is only to be affected by what would affect its title injuriously. Placing it in other hands would not have that effect, unless it was so placed as to be beyond his and the surety's reach and control. The power of attorney would keep it within his control, unless it was revocable against his will. Had it been their property it would be, but coupled with his interest it would not be. Hunt V. Rousmanier, 8 Wheat. 174; Story on Agency, § 477. �Still it is argued that the title had been put out of his hands for an illegal purpose, and that no court would enable him to regain it, and that so the right to it was affected injuriously to the surety. It is said that the conveyance was made to avoid a liability or duty. This is not quite correct, so far as �v.5,no.7— 37 ����
