In an action by a real estate agent for commissions, the owner testified that when the agent's sub-agent introduced a purchaser, the latter stated he wished to deal direct with the owner, who then stated a less price than fixed in the contract of employment; the owner testified that the sub-agent and the purchaser stated that they had made no arrangement with the agent; that the sub-agent stated nothing about commissions to the agent; and that he (the owner) told the purchaser and sub-agent that, if the agent had sold the land, he would have to let it go; the sub-agent testified that he asked the owner if the latter would not have trouble with the agent about the commissions, to which the owner replied that he would not, as he was selling the farm; the sub-agent testified that he told the owner he did not charge any commission, as he would get that from the agent; the purchaser substantiated the sub-agent's testimony; there was no evidence to show that the owner knew that the sub-agent was acting for the agent. Held, that the question whether the sub-agent concealed such fact from the owner should have been submitted to the jury. Mullen v. Bower, 22 Ind. App. 294, 53 N. E. 790.