HEOOX V. CITIZENS' INS. CO. OP ST. LOUIS. 541 �bond which was subsequently executed plainly informed the Company that it was wholly prospective in its terms and legal effect. If enough were established by the testimony to show either an actual or constructive fraud upon the sureties in the application of payments, and that the company was knowingly a party to the transaction, there would be, as .1 conceive, difficulty in perceiving why such a state of facts would not be a defence m.aintainable in an action at law on the bond. However that may be, my conclusion is that in this suit in equity, to entitle complainants to relief against the judgment already recovered, it must appear that the moneys remitted by Pottle after the execution of the bond were, in fact, moneys which he received as agent from cur- rent business, and that the defendant company had knowl- edge, when it reôeived such moneys and applied them in the manner directed by Pottle, that they were moneys which he received from business accruing after the execution of the bond, and, in this regard, the proofs do not meet the require- ments of the case. The bill must therefore be dismissed. ����
