C0NNECTICT3T MUT. JJFB EIS. 00. V. SOAMMON. STl �but as the owner of the life estate, receiving the rents and profits, it was his legal duty to do them. �As the mortgage contained a coveuant to keep the build- ings insured, and as the care and management of the property were entrusted wholly to Mr. Scammon, it is clear that his act of procuring insurance as additional security to the mort- gage was within the scope of his agency as the representative of the interest of his daughters. It ^was a legitimate incident to the business of managing and preserving the property. But it is not to be overlooked that this and the other acts before specified were such as touched the property in its character as real estate, and the question is, could authority to make the special agreement in relation to the insurance money, so far as it affected the inferests of his daughters, be implied from the general power he possessed and exercised over the property ? I am of opinion it could not. In sup- port of this conclusion it is to be borne in mind that the instrument which required insurance to be obtained, and which in its provisions controlled the destiny of the insurance money, was executed not by Mr. Scammon, for and as the, agent of his daughters, but by those persons acting for them- selves. The covenants and stipulations of the mortgage were made effective by their own signatures and seals. The origin of the obligations and rights of ail the parties with reference to insurance, and any moneys derived therefrom, was the mortgage; and, direction having been therein given as to the ultimate disposition of the same, so serious a departure therefrom as a waiver of valuable rights and a diversion of the fund would involve, would require the sanction of the owners of the fee, so far as their interests were eonoerned. The waiver of rights established by the mortgage, the virtual revocation of special oontract provisions, involved an extra- ordinary power, not falling within such general cont jôl oyer the property as the owner of the life estate i. was accustomed to exercise. It was outside the scope of bja agency, and not properly incident to any general powers pertaining thereto. Consent on the part ôf the owners of the fee to any diversion. ����
