This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in an action brought for damages by plaintiff against defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint sets forth two causes of action, one for conversion and the other for money had and received for the plaintiff’s use and benefit. Both causes of action arise from the same transaction and are for the same amount of money.

The dispute in the instant case arises over the way in which a draft was handled. The draft was made payable to G. P. Broughton and was thereafter indorsed by the said Broughton as follows: “Pay to the order of Pacific Coast Loan of Los Angeles—G. P. Broughton.”

The defendant’s answer denied that the plaintiff was the owner or was ever rightfully in possession or at all in possession of this draft, which was of the agreed value of $6,060. It was received by one C. M. North, who was agent for the plaintiff and carried on its business in the city of Long Beach. The court found, upon evidence, “That, as such agent of plaintiff, said C. M. North had ostensible authority to make collections and to pay withdrawals from plaintiff company, including coupons; to receive cash and checks payable to plaintiff company; to endorse plaintiff’s name upon the checks; and to deposit the same in the defendant bank, both to the credit of plaintiff and to his individual credit.” The court found that such draft was received by the said North with instructions from the said G-. P. Broughton to invest the draft in full paid-up membership certificates of plaintiff company in the amount of $6,000, the said $60 being for premiums. The court also found upon evidence introduced at the trial, “That prior to the 11th day of August, 1928, plaintiff company had ceased to issue full paid-up membership certificates, of which fact the said C. M. North informed the said G. P. Broughton; and the said C. M. North was, by G. P. Broughton, directed and instructed to invest the funds of G. P. Broughton, represented by said bank draft in the securities of another company other than plaintiff.” The court also found: “That the said C. M. North, as the agent of plaintiff, endorsed the name of plaintiff upon the back of said draft and deposited the same in defendant bank to the credit and individual account of C. M. North in said bank.

“That the said C. M. North, acting as the agent and representative of G. P. Broughton, checked out from the defendant bank the said $6,060.00, for the benefit of G. P. Broughton; that plaintiff was, at no time, the owner, or was, at any time, in possession of the said $6,060.00 bank drafts; that at the institution of this suit, defendant was not, and is not now, indebted to plaintiff in any sum.”

This matter comes before us on a bill of exceptions. The following evidence appears in said bill of exceptions as having been given by the said C. M. North. (Tr., pp. 28-33.)

“Chauncey M. North, called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff and being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

The appellant contends that C. M. North had no authority to indorse in the name of plaintiff drafts payable to the plaintiff, and to place the same to his individual credit with the defendant. There was sufficient evidence in the record to show that he had such authority, and that this draft was sent to C. M. North not solely as the agent of the plaintiff, but for a purpose which could not be carried out, and after the said North requested further instructions and received them, that he complied with said instructions as to the use of the money. There is no evidence in the record showing any consideration passing from the plaintiff to the said Broughton for the said draft in any manner, shape or form.

Appellant complains that the trial court committed error in admitting in evidence the following documents:

(a) Error in admitting in evidence daily reports made by C. M. North to plaintiff.

(b) Canceled checks indorsed by C. M. North in the name of the plaintiff, and placed in the personal account of C. M. North with defendant bank, and the deposit slips covering deposits made by C. M. North to his personal account with the defendant bank.

(c) Correspondence and telegrams written by either G. P. Broughton or C. M. North subsequent to the deposit of the draft in the account of C. M. North with the defendant bank.

All of this evidence was properly admitted by the trial court to show all the surrounding circumstances connected with the handling of this draft.

The bill of exceptions fails to disclose wherein or whereby the plaintiff lost anything by the action of the defendant hank.

The judgment is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and Houser, J., concurred.