— The case was put to the jury upon evidence introduced by the plaintiff alone. It appeared that he placed in the hands of the defendant the sum of eighty dollars and requested him to obtain a certain horse. The defendant was restricted in the price to be paid, to that sum, and was to procure the horse at a less price, if he should be able to do so, it being agreed that the defendant should receive the sum of one dollar for his services in purchasing the horse. He obtained the horse and delivered him to the plaintiff, who received him and disposed of him the same day. The defendant represented to the plaintiff, that he had saved nothing for himself. It appears by other testimony that the price paid for the horse by the defendant did not exceed the sum of .4k 72.50.
*433If the defendant made a valid contract with the plaintiff, to do the service requested as an agent, and did do it as was agreed, he was not at liberty to make a profit to himself in the transaction, in which he was acting as the agent; and whatever sum remained in his hands, after paying the price of the horse, deducting the compensation to be made to him, was the money of the plaintiff, for which the equitable action of money had and received could be maintained. The instructions to the jury were consistent with these principles and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff.
Exceptions overruled.