883 FEDEEAL REPORTEE. �Baie took place there had been arrangements made between Mr. Buchanan and the Jackson Coal & Mining Company, by •which the latter was to become ultimately the purchaser of the property. It was bid off and the certificate taken in the name of the plaintiff. At the time this arrangement was made between Mr. Buchanan and the coal company he claimed a considerable balance due him for fees. There had been a controversy previous to this, and on ita being însisted by the plaintiff that the money which had been received by him should be paid over to the plaintiff, and that the matter of fees should be adjusted afterwards, Mr. Buchanan did pay over the sum of $1,700. �Now the fault, and I think it quit a serious one, committed by Mr. Buchanan waa, that when he made the agreement with the coal company, and received the money which the company agreed to pay as the priee of the land, he gave no information of the fact to his principal. He not only did not at that time say that he had made the sale, but he said noth- ing whatever about the receipt of the money, although he had received so large a sum as $8,000. �He says that he claimed the right to hold it for fees that were due him. Suppose that to be so, still, it was unques- tionably his duty to give information at once to his client of the contract which he had made with the coal company, and of the receipt of the money. If that had been done I think there would bave been no controversy such as the court is now called upon to determine. �It is also to be said, I think. that there was a fault com- mitted by the plaintiff in not giving more specifie instructions to Mr. Buchanan in relation to the property which might be, and was, taken for the debta which were due to the Insurance company. If these instructions had been more specifie, and if so much had not been left in doubt, this controversy would never have sprung up. �It is true, as a legal proposition, that while Mr. Buchanan, in foreclosing the mortgage, had the right to receive the money, if it had been paid, or if the land had been redeemed by Mr. Masten from the sale, still he had no right, without special iiiStructions which amounted to authority, to dispose of the ����
