636 FEDKRAL EEPORTEB. �Pottle was indebted to the insurance company, on account of past transactions for the company, in the sum of $5,223.80, and between the date of the execution of the bond and Sep- tember 19, 1877, there became due to the company from Pot- tle, on account of business donc by him between those periods, $4,114.70. From April 6, 1877, the date of the bond, to September 19th of the same year, Pottle remitted to the com- pany $3,370, ail of which was, by his direction, applied upon his indebtedness to the company which accrued prior to the execution of the bond. The purpose of the present bill is to obtain an injunction restraining proceedings for the collection of the judgment at law against complainants, for an account- ing to ascertain what is justly due to the defendant company on account of the defalcations of Pottle, and to avoid the legal effect of the judgment recovered against complainants as Pottle 's sureties on the bond. �The material allegations of the bill are that at the time of and prior to the making of the bond Pottle was informed by the company that if he would give a bond, with good sure- ties, he should be at liberty to deposit the moneys of the company in bank with his other moneys, to his own credit and in his own name; that ail of Pottle's remittances, after the execution of the bond, should be applied upon his old accounts, on which he was in arrears to the insurance com- pany, and that Pottle then understood from the company that if he would give such a bond, and apply his collections after- wards made to the payment of his former deficits, he would be allowed to go on as previously, and act as the agent of the company; that Pottle, at the time of making the bond, understood from the insurance company that by giving the same he would be allowed to continue in business as agent, and to deposit moneys collected for the comi>any in bank with his own funds and in his own name, and would be required ont of such account to make remittances and to allow the same to be applied on account of his prior defalca- tions, and that he acted upon this understanding with the company in remitting and directing the application of the moneys afterwards collected by him, supposing that in so ����
