UNION M0T< LIFB INS.- 00. l>. MASTEN. '885 �■which was due to the latter frota the irisuranôe company, if Mr. Buchanan had paid $6,000 to Mr. Sharpe, as agent for the insurance company, there would have been no further contro- versy. Mr. Buchanan insista that he not only had the right to dispose of this land, but that he had told Mr. Sharpe at their first interview that he had disposed of it. There seems io be a little mystification in the use of language by Mr. Sharpe, While he says that Mr. Buchanan told him he had sold the land, and that it had been redeemed, he says also that Mr. Buchanan told him that it was a "three-cornered trade." Now, I think, if Mr. Sharpe had been particular and searching in his inquiries he would have ascertained more clearly than he seetns to have done what the "three- cornered trade" meant. �The question to be determined is this: Did Mr. Sharpe know, at the time he demanded the money of Mr. Buchanan, that Mr. Buchanan had sold the land and signed the ceftifi- cate; and did he, by demanding, the money, or expressing a ■willingness to take it from Mr. Buch'anan, ratify the acts of Mr. Buchanan? I am inclined to think that the weight of evidence is that he did. I say this with some hesitation, but I think, taking all the testimony together, that this is the conclusion. �As I have said, Mr. Buchanan did not act quite fairly; he did not perform his whole duty to hi9>clients; he did not in- form tbem of the facts. 'The excuse he gives, that he did not consider himself bound to inform the company that he had sold the land and got the money until the whole thing was closed up, is an invalid excuse. Still, it seems to me, taking all the evidence together, it is the duty of the court to say that the weight of it is that Mr. Sharpe did know that Mr. Buchanan had sold this land and had assigned the certi- ficate, and that he did, with that knowledge, demand the money of Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Sharpe and Mr. Buchanan are in conflict on this point. I know that admissions are to be taken with considerable allowance; but admissions, where there is a conflict in the evidence and where they concern the ����
