One buying from a non-resident owner, through a real estate broker, is bound to ascertain his authority and the correspondence by which it is established. Merritt v. Wasenich, 49 Fed. 785; Sullivant v. Jahren, 71 Kan. 127, 79 P. 1071; Mechem on Ag., secs. 276, 288, 290; El Reno Grocery Co. v. Stocking, 127 N. E. 642, - I11. Sup. - . Authority to negotiate a sale to one person, on particular terms, is insufficient to authorize a subsequent sale to a different person. Graves v. Horton, 38 Minn. 66, 35 N. W. 568; compare Smith v. Mayfield, 60 I11. App. 266. A letter from a principal is sufficient authority for the agent to sell according to its terms. Stadelman v. Fitzgerald, 14 Neb. 290; Montgomery v. Amster (T. C. A. '09), 122 S. W. 307; West v. Mills, 82 N. Y. S. 473, 83 App. Div. 629; Johnson v. Ruler (Kan. Sup. '09), 103 P. 99. Authority to sell for cash and time does not warrant a sale for more cash and less time. Speer v. Craig, 16 Colo. 478, 27 Pac. 891; Taylor v. Read (Tex. C. A. '08), 113 S. W. 191; McFadden v. Crisler, 213 S. W. 912, - Tenn. Sup. - . Authority to sell for half cash is complied with by a sale for cash on delivery of the deed. With-erell v. Murphy, 147 Mass. 417, 18 N. E. 215. Without special authority an agent to collect rents can not pay a debt of his principal. Phillips v. Belden, 2 Edw. (N. Y.) Ch. 1. Authority to locate and survey land confers no authority to sell. Moore v. Lockett, 2 Bibb. (Ky.) 67. Authority to sell and convey lands for cash, includes authority in the agent to receive payment of the purchase money. Yerby v. Grigsby, 9 Leigh. (Va.) 387. Compare Halsell v. Renfrew, 14 Okl. 674, 78 Pac. 118, affirmed 202 U. S. 287. Authority to make contracts for the sale of lands authorized the agent to receive so much money as is paid in hand on the sale, as an incident to the power of sale. Yerby v. Grigsby, 9 Leigh (Va.), 387.

An agent to sell lands on credit has no authority to receive payment, nor before due, nor in anything but money. Mann v. Robinson, 19 W. Va. 49. An agent has no authority to give an extension of time to the purchaser to make a payment. Gerrish v. Maker, 70 I11. 470. Authority to employ lawyers to secure the right and title of the principal to certain land, does not authorize a conveyance of half of the land to them for their services and for their agreeing to provide for the expenses of a suit to confirm the title, and, in case of success, to pay to them a certain sum in addition. Blum v. Robertson, 24 Cal. 128. An agent appointed to rent and care for real estate has no authority, in his own name, to recover possession from the holder of a tax title. McHenry v. Painter, 58 Iowa, 365. An agent authorized to enter into a written contract for the sale of real estate can not enter into a verbal agreement therefor. Barmig v. Peirce, 5 Watts & S. (Pa.) 548. To sell in lots does not authorize a sale otherwise, and, if made, the same will be set aside. Rice v. Tavenier, 8 Minn. 248.

The receipt of an agent, authorized to sell and convey land, who enters into a contract for his principal with a purchaser, binds his principal. Peck v. Harriott, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 146. Authority of an agent to sell a lot for $5,500 net, does not support a sale for $5,500 gross, made nine months after when the property has greatly advanced in value. Wassweyler v. Martin, 78 Wis. 59, 46 N. W. 890; Colvin v. Blanchard, 106 S. W. (Tex. Civ. App. '07) 323; Schmidt v. Chittenden, 98 P. 48 (Cal. App. '08). A letter from a principal to his agent stating, "I am glad you have sold the 88 acres; now, sell the 40," is not, under the Missouri statute, an authorization in writing for the sale of the additional forty acres. Johnson v. Fecht, 185 Mo. 335, 83 S. W. 1077. And a letter by a principal to his agent stating, "I am just in receipt of your favor of the 5th inst. regarding sale of the 40-acre tract of land, and in reply would say as follows: Have deed made out and sent to me for signing, as I can not say definitely when I will be able to return," etc., the letter of the agent replied to, without disclosing the name of the proposed vendee, stated that the agent had sold the forty acres on the south side of the railroad for $1,000, and that "this completes the sale of the whole tract for $4,000," and concluded by asking whether they should send the deed to be executed, or whether he would soon be home. "Held, That the principal's letter was insufficient to constitute a written ratification of the sale. Johnson v. Fecht, 185 Mo. 335, 83 S. W. 1077.

A contract of sale executed by a broker under stale authority will not be specifically enforced. Hall v. Gambrill, 92 Fed. 32, 34 C. C. A. 190. An agreement by a broker to give a purchaser possession in ninety days was beyond the scope of his authority. Hopkins v. Everly, 150 Pa, St. 117, 24 A. 624, 30 Weekly Notes Cas. 393. Power to sell any or all of constituent's real estate, authorizes the sale of that acquired subsequently. Fay v. Winchester, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 513; Burkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287. Power to sell all land the principal has not conveyed, authorizes the sale of that sold but not conveyed. Mitchell v. Maupin, 3 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 185. In Illinois a power, not under seal, will authorize the attorney to sell but not to convey the land. Watson v. Sherman, 84 I11. 263, 267. A broker authorized to sell, partly for cash and partly on time, has discretion to determine the amount of the cash payment. Taylor v. Cox (Tex. Supreme '87), 7 S. W. 69. If an agent be authorized in fact, though inoperative in law to bind his principal, no recovery can be had against the agent. Thomson v. Davenport, 2 Smith's L. C. 366; Walker v. Bk. of St. N. Y., 9 N. Y. 582; Sheffield v. Ladue, 16 Minn. 388; Duncan v. Niles, 32 I11. 532; Seery v. Socks, 29 I11. 313; Abbey v. Chase, 6 Cush, (Mass.) 54; Leronx v. Brown, 12 C. B. (Eng.) 801; Aspinwall v. Torrence, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 381; Smont v. Illory, 10 M. & W. (Eng.) 1. The mere insertion in an instrument, without consideration, that it is irrevocable, is inoperative. Walker v. Denison, 86 I11. 162. Authority, in writing, left with an agent after revocation may, by its exercise, bind the principal as to third persons without notice. Beard v. Kirk, 11 N. H. 397.