In an action by a broker for commissions on a sale of land, it was error to qualify an instruction that plaintiff could not recover if he was acting for both parties, by the statement: "Unless his double employment was understood," without stating, that it must appear the buyer knew, or had been informed by plaintiff of his relation to defendant; since the jury might have inferred that even if defendant knew plaintiff was the agent of the buyer, and unless plaintiff fraudulently induced him to believe that he was serving only in his interest, the failure to disclose to the buyer the employment by defendant would not bar recovery. Sullivan v. Tufts (Mass. Sup. '09), 89 N. E. 239.