In an action for commissions for selling real estate, an instruction that if defendant's husband "was agent in charge of said property, and for the sale of the same, and defendant's said agent employed plaintiff" to procure a purchaser, and the property was sold by defendant to a purchaser procured by plaintiff, he was entitled to recover, was erroneous, in that it in effect instructed the jury, as a matter of law, that if defendant's husband was the agent in charge of said property and for the sale of the same, he had authority to employ another to procure a purchaser. Id. See also Sec. 39.