Where plaintiff, an architect, about to supervise the erection of a building, advised defendant to have his adjoining building underpinned before excavations for the new building began, and thereupon defendant agreed with a contractor that the latter, for a specific sum should, under plaintiff's supervision, underpin defendant's wall, and defendant and a witness testified that the specified sum was to cover the entire cost of the work and that plaintiff agreed to charge nothing for his supervision, an instruction that by the contract plaintiff was employed by defendant to supervise the contractor's work, was erroneous, as ignoring the defense, as plaintiff may have been working for compensation or giving his services gratuitously because of his interest in the adjoining property. Kirchner v. Concord Inv. Co., 127 Mo. App. 262, 104 S. W. 1127.