The controversy was one of fact, the plaintiff contending that he was employed by the defendant to sell his lot; that he procured a purchaser to whom the defendant afterwards sold, and the defendant that the plaintiff could not procure a purchaser at the price he was authorized to sell; that he withdrew the lot from the plaintiff, and then sold it; and it has been submitted to the jury under proper instructions, whióh not only required the defendant to show that he gave notice to the plaintiff that the lot was withdrawn, but also that this was done in good faith.

No error.