case in the bank at the customer’s desk, and Mr. Krieger indorsed it, and that is the last I saw of it. * * *
“Q. Did you have any talk with Mr. Krieger after the check was turned over? A. I asked him why he turned the money over. He said that Mr. Schultz wanted the money to fix that building up with it.
“Q. You say that you saw Mr. Schultz sign his name to that check? A. Mr. Krieger signed it.
“Q. Did you do anything at that time? A. I shook my head at him when he turned the check over to Mr. Schultz.”
This statement of transaction in the bank is corroborated by another employee of the bank, but is contradicted by the testimony of the plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that the first time he knew that the defendant bank claimed that plaintiff should have applied the money received from the insurance company on the indebtedness secured by the first mortgage was some four weeks after he received the check from the insurance company and indorsed and turned it over to the mortgagors. The plaintiff gives this version of a conversation which he claims was had between himself and an officer at the defendant bank:-—
“T said: ‘Why did you not tell me that before?’ He said: ‘We don’t have to. You ought to know that yourself.’”
There was also an insurance policy on the property under the terms of which the loss was made payable to the defendant bank as its interests might appear. When the loss was adjusted the defendant bank received some $749.
The undisputed evidence is to the effect that in January, 1918, the defendant bank paid the plaintiff the full amount of interest on plaintiff’s mortgage. In other words, the defendant bank paid interest on $1,500. Later, in April, 1918, the defendant bank foreclosed its mortgage on said property by advertisement, and bid the property in at the mortgage foreclosure sale for the full amount due on its said mortgage. No redemption was made. And on April 22, 1919, the sheriff’s deed was issued to said bank upon its foreclosure. Subsequent to the issuance of said deed, the plaintiff brought this action to foreclose his mortgage on the property, claiming the full face amount thereof to be due. The defendant bank, as owner of the premises by virtue of the sheriff’s deed, interposed an answer, wherein it challenged the right of the plaintiff to recover the amount demanded in the complaint. It asserted that the moneys paid by the insurance company to the plaintiff under the loss
