Where money paid to an unauthorized agent is turned over to the principal or mingled with his funds, it is clear that an action for money had and received will lie against the principal.1 Where the agent receiving the money is authorized to borrow, and the invalidity of the contract results merely from its unauthorized form, the receipt by the agent amounts in legal contemplation to a receipt by the principal (ante, Sec. 75), and consequently should support an action for money had and received against the principal, whatever disposition of the money is subsequently made by the agent. Where the agent receiving the money is not authorized to borrow, and instead of paying it over to the principal or mingling it with his funds, applies it to the satisfaction of debts of the principal, the count for money had and received is unavailable against the principal. It would seem, however, that an action for money paid to the defendant's use should be sustained.2 Moreover, the circumstances would seem to justify the subrogation of the plaintiff to the rights of the creditors of the principal upon whose claims the money was applied.3

1 Reid v. Rigby, [1894] 2 Q. B. 40; Leonard v. Burlington Mutual Loan Assn., 1881, 55 la. 594; 8 N. W. 463.

2 See Reid v. Rigby, [1894] 2 Q. B. 40, opinion of Collins, J.; Biek-nell v. Widner School Township, 1881, 73 Ind. 501, 505.

3 White River School Township v. Dorrell, 1901, 26 Ind. App. 538; 59 N. E. 867.