In an action for broker's services, an answer alleging that the proposed purchaser was plaintiff's uncle, and that they entered into collusion, whereby the uncle was to pretend to defendant that he was ready and willing to purchase the land and pay for the same in cash, and that defendant under the belief that the proposed purchaser was acting in good faith fixed a day and place for the execution of the deed, when plaintiff and his uncle questioned the description for the purpose of delay, and that before the adjourned-day fixed for the execution of the deed, defendant was informed that the proposed purchaser would not take the land, until he had had an opportunity of reinspeeting it, which he never did, stated a sufficient defense. McAfee v. Bending, 36 Ind. App. 628, 76 N. E. 412.