The .excellent brief filed by counsel for appellant states that there are only two questions presented by the appeal:
1. Is there more than a scintilla of evidence that V. S. Lusk had knowledge of the note signed by K. Reeves, or information which put him upon enquiry as to the note at the time the deed of trust was executed and the loan made ?
2. Is there more than a scintilla of evidence that Y. S. Lusk was the agent of Mrs. Lusk in making the loan ?
We concur with his Honor upon both questions. The deed of trust was made more than two years after the grant of letters, and Mrs. Lusk made a loan upon the faith of the security. She is a purchaser for value and her title is therefore good, “even as against creditors,” unless she had notice of the *273outstanding debt. The Code, sec. 1442. There is no suggestion that she had personal knowledge of any fact sufficient to put her upon enquiry. Reversing the order of the questions as they are put in the brief, we enquire whether there is any evidence that Mr. Lusk was her agent in the transaction. The answer to this question depends upon the construction to be placed on the testimony of Mr. Smathers. It is clear that there was no express contract between Colonel Lusk and his wife by which she made him her agent. It is conceded that by her conduct, if unequivocal and understood by the parties, that is, the wife and the other contracting party, that she recognized him as her agent, she must be bound by his acts. It would seem, however, that no presumption arises by reason of the relationship that he is the agent of his wife. 1 Am. & Eng. Ency., 958. The agency must be proven. Rhinehard on Agency, 51. “The husband may act as agent of his wife, but in order to bind her he must previously be authorized to do so or his act must with full knowledge be ratified.” McLaren v. Hall, 26 Iowa, 297. “The wife, may constitute the husband her agent, but to establish this the evidence must be clear and satisfactory and sufficiently strong to explain and remove the equivocal character in which she is placed by reason of her relation of wife.” Rowell v. Klein, 44 Ind., 290; 15 Am. Rep., 235. We do not find any evidence that Mrs. Lusk appointed her husband agent to examine the title to the land. Mr. Smathers said to her that he would go back to Waynesville and look up the title and encumbrances, and Colonel Lusk was to come out afterwards and verify his examination as to records, which he did before the trust deed was executed. This appears to have been Mr. Smathers’ suggestion. The testimony falls short of evidence proving an agency.
Affirmed.