Plaintiff, in an action by a broker for commissions for the sale of an office building, who had for nine years been defendant's agent for handling certain real estate for him, claimed authority, never revoked, to sell the building, which defendant denied ever having been given; four years before the sale they had an agreement as to plaintiff's management of this and other property of defendant, and plaintiff wrote defendant a letter reciting that, in accordance with their conversation of that date, he thereby stated his understanding of their agreement as to commissions he was entitled to for the management of defendant's properties, the one in question, with another, being named, following which were the terms, the commissions, and the duties to be performed, with no statement, however, with respect to sales; defendant's letter in reply stated that plaintiff's letter was practically correct, then gave the detailed terms of the employment of plaintiff as agent, and concluded, "this arrangement is not to be considered as including a sale of the property; I reserve the right to deal direct in case of a sale." Held, that defendant was entitled to have both letters introduced in evidence on the question of employment, and it was not enough to admit the concluding paragraph of defendant's letter, it losing much of its effect when standing alone. Willard v. Ferguson, 110 N. Y. S. 909, 125 App. Div. 868. See also Sec. 564.