In an action by a real estate broker for commissions, the defendant answered denying the broker's employment, and testified that he merely inquired of the broker if the latter had a customer who would exchange land for the defendant's stock; that the broker responded that he had; that defendant then said he was putting in his own time trading, and wanted it understood that he would not pay a commission; the court instructed, if it appeared that at defendant's instance the broker procured a customer, etc., and that it appeared that when defendant listed his property with the broker, the latter in bringing the parties together, etc., was acting for both of them. Held, that the instruction was erroneous in assuming that the broker was acting for the defendant, though the issue as to defendant's promise to pay a commission was separately submitted. Casady v. Carraher, 119 Iowa, 500, 93 N. W. 386.