Where a firm of real estate agents sends a letter to a land owner enclosing their business card and informing him what the business of the firm is, and also inquiring whether the land is in the market and its price, and the owner immediately answers, giving the price of the land, the terms and conditions of sale, and the amount of commissions which he is willing to allow to the real estate agents for selling it, and they immediately commence to act as the agents of the land owner in trying to procure a purchaser of the land, they are his agents, and when they find a purchaser ready to purchase the land upon the terms and conditions prescribed, and sell the land to him, they have earned their commissions. Stephens v. Scott, 43 Kan. 285, 23 P. 555; Imper-ato v. Washoe, 93 N. Y. S. 489; Rodman v. Manning (Or. Sup. '09) 99 P. 657, 1135; Ispherding v. Wolf, 36 Ind. App. 250, 75 N. E. 598; Getzilsohn v. Donnell, 98 N. Y. S. 213, 56 Misc. 164; Montgomery v. Amster (Tex. C. A. '09), 122 S. W. 307; Pattratz v. Piper, 145 N. W. 265, 95 Neb. 145; Shaff v. Ash, 145 N. W. 271, 95 Neb. 255; a person dealing with a real estate agent, with knowledge that the agent's authority rests on correspondence between him and his principal, must ascertain the extent of the agent's authority, and is bound by the restrictions thereof. Strong v. Ross, 33 Ind. App. 586, 71 N. B. 918.

Real estate brokers wrote the owner of a lot that they had a customer therefor at a price named, and asked for an answer, and in reply to the owner's answer asked his lowest price and stated that they had a client for the lot; the owner answered naming his price, to which the brokers replied that their client deemed the price too high, but subsequently wrote that they were working to get him up to the owner's price, on condition that a second mortgage be paid off, and asked the owner to come to the city; the owner did not answer the letter nor come to the city, but the brokers again wrote that their client would pay the owner's price over existing mortgages, to which the owner answered accepting, providing that they did business at once, whereupon the brokers telegraphed or wrote the owner to come to their office on a day stated, but this the owner did not do. Held, not to constitute a contract of employment. Lotz v. Levy, 104 N. Y. S. 1058, 120 App. Div. 477. Correspondence between defendant and the owner respecting defendant's authority and the nature of his dealings with the owner was admissible, not as declarations of third persons against plaintiff, but as tending to show the authority given defendant by the owner, and what he did thereunder. Wefel v. Stillman (151 Ala. 249), 44 S. 203. On the issue as to whether a loan broker was the agent of the defendant in negotiating a loan for him, or the agent of plaintiff company which made the loan, correspondence between the broker and the plaintiff's manager, relative to defendant's loan and the requested extensions thereof, and concerning other loans made by plaintiff through the broker, is admissible in evidence, and the question is for the jury. Jesson v. Texas Land & Loan Co. 3 Tex. Civ. App. 25, 21 S. W. 624; Holliday v. Mc-Williams, 76 Neb. 324, 107 N. W., 578; Bradley v. Bower (Neb. Sup. '04), 99 N. W. 490; Hardwick v. Marsh, 130 S. W. 524, 96 Ark. 23.