Plaintiff, as broker, sold a ranch for defendant, a farm . being taken in exchange for part of the price; defendant refused to pay any commissions on the value of the farm; after the sale of the farm plaintiff sued for commissions thereon, claiming that he had accepted the settlement as to commissions on the sale of the ranch, on an agreement for a commission on the sale of the farm; defendant claimed that, while he had authorized plaintiff to assist in selling the farm, it Was sold by defendant himself; the court instructed that if a contract for commissions on a sale of the farm was made for a "valuable consideration," and plaintiff complied with his contract, and the farm was sold "at a price and upon terms acceptable to defendant," plaintiff was entitled to recover, and refused to instruct that "if defendant failed to pay all the commissions for the sale and exchange of the ranch, and the parties agreed in lieu thereof, he was to have a commission on the sale of the farm," etc., "plaintiff was entitled to recover." Held, that there was error in the giving and refusing of the instructions, the jury having been left to determine what would be a valuable consideration, and the words "at a price and on terms acceptable to defendant" being superfluous and probably misleading. Harrison v. Houston (Tex. Civ. App. '06), 91 S. W. 647.