540 FEDERAL REPORTER, �cution of the bond were of the moneys received by liim from their current business, or that the company was a party to any agreement or understanding that remittances should be made from such moneys to apply upon old indebtedness. ïhe company seems to have received remittances in the ordinary course, with directions on the part of its debtor to apply them in a certain way, and they were so applied. Indeed, it can- not, upon the evidence, be found that the moùeys which Pot- tle received from current business, after the execution of the bond, were the moneys remitted by him to the defendant company. For aiight that appears, he may bave used those moneys on bis personal aecount and remitted other moneys received from other insurance companies, or from other sources, to the defendant company. �Pottle, in his testimony, says that he cannot testify that be was requested to remit as usual after giving the bond. He does say, however, that the reason he direoted his remittances to be applied on the old aecount, instead of the current months for which collections were made, was because it was his un- derstanding, at the time the bond was given, that he should remit on aecount of subsequent collections, as he had remitted before. But the proofs do not bring home to the insurance company such understanding, and be states that when the bond was mailed to the defendant company be had no talk with any of the company's ofEcers as to the manner in which he should keep his bank aecount or the company's funds, and that he had never shown his aecount to the officers of the com- pany. So far as any understanding in relation to deposits and remittances is concerned, it rests in inference, and seems to bave been solely the understanding of Pottle, without evi- dence of participation therein by the insurance company, �It is true that in the letter which the secretary of the com- pany wrote to Pottle, requesting the execution of the bond, reference is made to the then existing indebtedness of Pottle, and it is stated that it is the wish of the company to bave security against any contingency, and it may have then been thought that the bond which Pottle was required to give would secure past as well as any future liability. But the ����
